Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL

MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

National Nuclear Corporation

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the signing of the agreement for shareholding in the National Nuclear

Corporation, giving the proportion of shares to be held by both public and private interests.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Discussions for the restructuring of the shareholding of the National Nuclear Corporation are still in progress. I am therefore not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a matter of the utmost national importance? Will he give an assurance that there will be no automatic General Electric Company monopoly and that details of any agreement reached will be made known in full to the House of Commons?

Mr. Benn: I recognise the importance of the point. The GEC has a supervisory contract. When I am in a position to make a statement I shall do so.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As the pressure tube reactor programme has now slipped a full year since the Minister's predecessor announced the Government's decision last year, is it not becoming a matter of great urgency that the structure of the National Nuclear Corporation should be sorted out so that Dr. Ned Franklin, managing director of NPC, should be given clear and firm terms of reference to get on with what is, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, an essential part of the Government's energy strategy?

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir.

Gas Supply (Rural Areas)

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will give a general direction to the British Gas Corporation to expand the network of gas supply mains in rural areas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): No, Sir. The statute imposes a duty to satisfy all reasonable demands for gas only so far as it is economical for the corporation to do so, a matter of which it is the proper judge.

Dr. Marshall: Is it not in the national interest that all energy consumers should have the widest possible choice of fuel, especially in the rural areas, and that gas should be more widely available as an alternative to oil for central heating purposes?

Mr. Smith: This involves the commercial judgment of the British Gas Corporation, which looks at each proposition on its merits. If my hon. Friend has any case or area in mind, perhaps he will get in touch with me, after which I shall communicate the details to the British Gas Corporation.

Oil (Self-sufficiency)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with progress in the North Sea towards achieving self-sufficiency in oil.

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Renton: Will the Secretary of State say how long he thinks that self-sufficiency will last? Will he give a guarantee to the nation of non-interference by himself so that this vital self-sufficiency will not be put at risk by his blunders?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman asks me about progress towards achieving self-sufficiency. He is now inviting me to look forward into the future to see how long the oil under the North Sea will last after it has been discovered. I think that on reflection he will agree that that was not an easy question to answer. I cannot answer it.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Secretary of State accept that Scotland could be self-sufficient

in oil within a matter of months and that it could remain self-sufficient in oil for much longer than could Britain, if we are considering merely North Sea oil? Will he make a comment on the importance of the relationship between the Scottish Assembly, which will govern a country rich in oil resources, and England, which will be importing oil?

Mr. Benn: Although I understand the hon. Lady's interest, I think that she has somewhat oversimplified these problems. She will recognise that until we are able to accomplish participation, and indeed a new framework, the oil, or any part of it, will in no sense belong to the people of this country.

Coal Industry (Finance)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage increase in the price of coal would be necessary—taking no account of the elasticity of demand—for the National Coal Board to cover its costs including interest on capital.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The board aims to break even in the current financial year after covering its costs, including interest on capital.

Mr. Ridley: I am glad to hear that. Is there any chance of recouping some of the enormous amount of capital we have written off for the National Coal Board in past years? Does the Minister agree with Mr. Arthur Hawkins that there is now no scope for increasing the price of coal without making it un-competitive against the price of oil?

Mr. Eadie: I think that the hon. Gentleman is on another tack and is hiding his chagrin at the substantial progress that is being made by the coal industry. Mr. Arthur Hawkins must be responsible for his own statements. We live in a world in which energy must become more and more expensive.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of improving the National Coal Board's finances would be to increase productivity? Will he explain to the House why productivity has been falling since March although recruitment has been increasing?

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is correct. In two months—I think in May and June—to some extent productivity fell. The hon. Gentleman will probably have read in the Press that the unions and the National Coal Board are to cooperate and hold meetings to discuss the reasons for this fall. One reason is the training problem with new entrants to the industry. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there are also serious geological problems.

Sir John Hall: Does the Minister agree that if we could get our productivity even within striking distance of the productivity achieved in Germany, Luxembourg and France, it would have a dramatic effect on prices and the general cost of coal in this country would go down very sharply?

Mr. Eadie: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's precise analogies. I have been to Western Germany and seen how coal is produced there and some of the technological progress which has been made. Although Germany has made technical progress, I think the hon. Gentleman will like to know that we in this country have nothing to be ashamed of in our technological progress. I have already said that the men, management and unions are seized of the problem of trying to increase productivity. They have substantially increased productivity over a period.

Nationalised Industry Chairmen

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the nationalised energy industries.

Mr. Benn: I meet the chairmen regularly, but a collective meeting is now unlikely before the early autumn.

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister agree that he is in duty bound to convene a meeting at an early date so that he can explain to the chairmen collectively what measures he proposes to take to regain their confidence, which has been wholly shattered after the revelations about Court Line and the right hon. Gentleman's failures and to some extent by the steel review? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his own fallibility in taking top-level decisions is in question?

What does he propose to do about trying to regain the confidence of the chairmen?

Mr. Benn: Last month I organised a collective meeting with the chairmen which had to be deferred because the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill came forward at rather short notice. I share the view that relations between Ministers and chairmen of nationalised industries are important but I have always taken the view that Ministers, being accountable to the House, have concerns that they have to safeguard. I have sought to do that and I intend to do so in the future.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister discuss with the chairmen the ludicrous position that calls in the Press and on television day in, day out for the conservation of energy are followed by advertisements telling people to go to this or that electricity showroom or gas showroom to buy new equipment? Should there not be one showroom for gas and electricity and one meter reader to read both gas and electricity meters? Should there not be co-ordination to cut down expenses and possibly to reduce the number of chairmen and so that one chairman runs the two boards?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend will know that the possible combination of showrooms is under discussion. I have written to the consultative committees about it. I hope my hon. Friend will also recognise that some of the most wasteful appliances that are in use are old appliances, and if they were replaced by new ones energy would be conserved. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend puts a supplementary question to me he must let me reply. There are many modern appliances that produce great economies, not only to the householder—

Mr. Lewis: But why not all in one place?

Mr. Benn: If my hon. Friend will rise to his feet I will allow him to ask endless supplementary questions. New appliances can save energy, and one would expect that information about them should be made available to customers.

North Sea Oil (Nationalisation)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his up-to-date estimate of the capital cost of his


proposed nationalisation of oil interests in the North Sea.

Mr. John Smith: I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 30th June.—[Vol. 894, c. 304.]

Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that the pound fell by as much as one cent. this morning and that sterling will continue to fall as long as he and his right hon. and hon. Friends continue to confirm that the Government are spending thousands of millions of pounds on projects such as the nationalisation of North Sea oil?

Mr. Smith: I think that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is wild exaggeration. He should be aware that the cost of participation after a time will be self-financing.

Mr. Dalyell: Has a decision been taken on the salary of the Chairman of BNOC?

Mr. Smith: No, Sir.

Power Stations (Coal Stocks)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that the level of coal stocks held at power stations is adequate.

Mr. Eadie: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern at the level of coal stocks held at a number of power stations throughout the country? Will he bear in mind the statement made by leaders of the National Union of Mine-workers never again to allow large stocks of coal to be held at power stations? Will he assure the House that steps will be taken before the onset of winter to repair the present situation?

Mr. Eadie: I can only give the hon. Gentleman the facts. The stocks at the moment are about 17½ million tons compared with 11·8 million tons at the same time in 1974 and 19 million tons in 1973. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the stocking position has substantially improved.

North Sea Oil (European Community Proposals)

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent proposals

have been made within the EEC regarding the availability within the Community of North Sea oil.

Mr. John Smith: There are no specific proposals. However, the EEC Council of Ministers resolved on 17th December 1974 to pursue a target of a Community oil production—both onshore and offshore—of at least 180 million tons per annum by 1985. This target does not bind individual member States.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Under-Secretary aware that Mr. Simonet said that Britain would hog its oil? As we shall be the only large producers in Europe by 1980 or 1985, should not the Government make up their mind what to do with the oil? Is it to be made available to Europe at world prices? What is the Government's depletion policy?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government repaired a deficiency in the statutory powers available to them by introducing proper depletion controls for the first time in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill. The question of the extent to which we should deplete our oil resources is a difficult problem to resolve, involving consideration of the amount of oil in our sector. The tone and manner in which Mr. Simonet speaks to the European Parliament is, thankfully, not a matter of ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Sillars: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the Common Market food surpluses, we shall not sell our oil surpluses to the Russians?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is, I am sure, aware that we have no obligation to export to the EEC, although no doubt we shall consider it to be a natural market for some of the oil we produce.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As the figure of anticipated British production which was given to the Community was 180 million tons by 1985, how comes it that the British Government do not consider themselves bound by it?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on that. The figure is for the whole Community production and includes present Community oil production of 10 million tons. I understand that the EEC took the figures in the Brown Book issued by the British Government


as the basis for the British component of the European total, but it is a European total. In future one will have to take into account within that 180 million tons oil acquired from La Mer d'Iroise in the French sector, the Greenland concessions which for this purpose are part of the EEC and also the Irish sector. It will be readily seen that much more than British resources are involved in the 180 million tons.

Mr. Skeet: As the answer to my Question is totally unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Waste Heat Recovery

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he is taking to encourage British industry to harness the wasted heat from factory chimneys.

Mr. Eadie: Recovery of waste heat is a technique already widely practised in industry, but there is scope for its further extension. The Government's energy conservation campaign seeks to encourage industry to review critically all aspects of its use of energy.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware, however, that a firm called Peter Brotherhood, of Peterborough, has apparently made a breakthrough in the technology of this subject but that successive British Governments have failed to make use of the technique, although American firms have seen its value and have signed large contracts? Will he have an investigation made as a matter of urgency into this apparent technological breakthrough?

Mr. Eadie: I will do so.

Mr. Rost: Since this is another demonstration of the Government's lack of sense of urgency about energy conservation, should not more funds be made available for this purpose rather than for nationalisation?

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman knows that what he has said is not true. He knows very well that the Department's chief scientist has been examining this whole question. In the "Save It" campaign there will be publications and publicity to assist towards conserving heat.

Mr. Ward: I welcome my hon. Friend's undertaking to look at the Peterborough invention, but will he also look at the steps which could be taken greatly to improve the efficiency in energy consumption of Battersea power station, in particular through the use of pulverised domestic refuse taken from Cringle Dock, which I believe the GLC is anxious to develop with the Central Electricity Generating Board, which apparently is being rather slow in coming to a decision?

Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Energy said that the Government were not proud in issues of conservation. We will examine any proposition put to us from either side of the House.

Summer Time

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further discussions he has had with interested parties in the United Kingdom concerning EEC proposals that summer time should be restricted in order to promote energy conservation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eadie: The Commission's proposal is not that summer time should be restricted but that it should be introduced in those member States which do not have it, and that the dates of summer time should be harmonised by mutual agreement. Primary responsibility for a summer-time arrangement in the United Kingdom rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who will be considering, with others concerned, whether the EEC discussions give rise to a need for consultations.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any tampering with our present summer-time arrangements would give rise to widespread resentment? Can he therefore indicate whether, in his judgment, there is very much substance in the argument that an alteration in any way of the summer-time arrangements could conserve energy?

Mr. Eadie: I have pointed out that we shall be talking about mutual arrangements. Clearly the experience of the United Kingdom would come into any negotiations or discussions on the matter. Other aspects, such as those involving transport, are matters for the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend inform the Secretary of State that we have had enough of this mucking about with our summer time? We had the experience under the last Labour Government when someone took a Bill out of a pigeon hole and a new arrangement for summer time was foisted on us. Do not let us have any such nonsense again. Let us remain precisely where we are.

Mr. Eadie: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views. No doubt he is referring to the use of British Standard Time. I think the whole House agrees that the disadvantages were found to be greater than the advantages.

North Sea Oil (Landing)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the first consignment of North Sea oil to land at Grangemouth.

Mr. John Smith: British Petroleum is in close touch with my Department and keeps us fully informed of progress. It is not practicable to state a precise date, but BP advises me that it expects the first oil to arrive about the end of October at Grangemouth. Production at the wellhead will have started some weeks before then and the interval is required to fill up the long pipelines under sea and on land.

Mr. Canavan: In order properly to celebrate this auspicious occasion, will my hon. Friend organise a reception, to which would be invited representatives of BP, the Scottish TUC, local Labour councillors, Members of Parliament and his own good self, all of whom are working hard to provide more jobs for Scottish workers in the oil idustry? Will he also confirm that virtually every drop of oil from the Forties field will be piped to Grangemouth? Does he agree that certain remarks made a few weeks ago when the first batch of North Sea oil was landed in the Thames Estuary were merely typical of the churlish chauvinism of the Scottish National Party?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has interesting ideas on the question which no doubt BP will note. I agree that this is a very important occasion and one worthy of widespread celebration. In relation to the comparison with the Argyll field, I am glad to note that my hon. Friend is seized

of the point. What is ridiculous in certain comments about the Argyll field situation is that on any median line basis it would fall in the English sector and that for others to claim it is simply economic nationalism or imperialism on their part.

Mr. Gray: When the oil flows freely to Grangemouth, will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government are of opinion that the present refining capacity is sufficient to cope with it or whether it is likely that further refineries will be required? Will he make a statement on that subject to an early date?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Energy made an extremely important statement on refining policy on 6th December, and that remains the general view of the Government. The main problem in relation to North Sea oil is changing the type of refining capacity so that it can take North Sea oil instead of the crude oil from the Middle East which has been the traditional source of supply.

Winter Supplies

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he is planning to secure adequate energy supplies and savings for the coming winter.

Mr. Benn: I am currently advised that stocks and supplies should be adequate to see us through the winter. Contingency plans are available should they be needed. I shall continue to develop measures to achieve savings, including the current publicity campaign.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Department's contingency plans cover the worst that could happen this coming winter, such as severe weather after four mild winters and also a substantial increase in the cost of Middle East crude? Both these factors are possible.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Any Secretary of State for Energy may run the risk in the winter of having to look back on an overoptimistic forecast made on a hot summer day. I underline what my hon. Friend has said. The House and the country should know that in winter there are risks from weather and of other


interruptions and dislocations, so we have to be careful. Contingency plans have been prepared with that in mind.

Mr. Emery: What has been the expenditure of the Government on the conservation advertising programme carried out so far? What is to be the budgeted figure for the remainder of the year?

Mr. Benn: That is another question, but I will furnish the hon. Gentleman with the precise figures.

Mr. Palmer: Should it not be a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend that the consumption of electricity is actually down on what it was three years ago, and that this is the first time there has been such a situation in the history of our electricity supply industry? Consumption has been dropping over the past two years. Does not this situation reflect the low level of industrial productivity? Should not this be a matter of grave concern to the Government?

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend has an unrivalled knowledge of the industry and is quite right in what he has said. As a result of the recession, the consumption of electricity is well below what it has been and could be. That gives us some margin, but no satisfaction should flow from that margin because it still leaves the hazards of the winter in the electricity supply and other fuel industries.

Mr. Evelyn King: Even on a hot summer's day, can the right hon. Gentleman say what research his Department or any other agency is conducting into solar heating, domestically or industrially? If so, what results, if any, have there been?

Mr. Benn: There is, of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Energy Technology Support Unit at Harwell. There are a number of national and international programmes, including the topic of solar energy, although our normal weather conditions do not make solar energy top priority in the United Kingdom. However, there are other forms of non-conventional energy consumption which are being vigorously explored.

Production Targets

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are

the Government's targets for the production of coal and North Sea oil and gas in tons of coal equivalent for the present year, and for the years 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, respectively.

Mr. Benn: The Government do not set targets for the production of coal, North Sea oil and gas.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some people will regard his reply with doubt in terms of the Government's efficiency in looking at future energy supplies? Is he aware that the cost of the oil from the North Sea could be so high that the oil supplied from the OPEC countries could undersell it at any given time? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to our having a national fuel policy, taking into account greater investment required in coal mining so that we can make it more attractive and recruit more men and youths into the industry?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has in mind, but he will recall that the forecasts contained in the 1967 White Paper were considered unwise. Therefore, such forecasts are not in my mind. He will also know that a number of major statements on fuel policy have been made by the Government since we came into office, including a tripartite coal examination with its long forward planning in respect of investment in coal. He will appreciate that the present Government are seeking to give coal its proper place in the development of our indigenous resources.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman forecast how many years he thinks it will take for BNOC to equal the skill of operation and efficiency of the major oil companies operating in the North Sea?

Mr. Benn: Longer than it should—if the Opposition continue attacking it.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to some extent his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was disgraceful? Since we are estimated to have a reserve of over 800,000 million tons of coal in this country as distinct from an unknown quantity of oil under the North Sea, is it not more realistic that my right hon. Friend and his Department should


set a target for the coal mining industry as something at which to aim?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend, who knows the coal industry very well, will appreciate that in the tripartite coal examination report—of which there was published last year both an interim and a final version—the Government committed themselves to a substantial increase in investment. They endorsed plans to stabilise deep mine production at 120 million tons a year until 1985. They also accepted a capital programme aimed at increasing opencast production to 15 million tons a year. We have no fixed upper limit of coal use, and the Government have done all they possibly can to encourage the mining industry, in which they very much believe.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Since the question concerns gas, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to his hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) for misleading him last week over the ICI gas contract? Does he not realise that to brandish "phoney" figures of that kind demonstrates yet another example of the Secretary of State's capacity to mislead with his foetid imagination?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is totally wrong again, as on so many other occasions in the past. I was asked a question, without prior notice, in the Select Committee about a matter into which I had inquired. I gave the information which was available to me and wrote to the Chairman of the Committee publishing the comments made by the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

Scotland (Secretary of State's Visit)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his official visit to Scotland.

Mr. Benn: I had a series of meetings with regional authorities, oil companies and unions, including the STUC, and with the Offshore Supplies Office staff. I also had the opportunity to see at first hand some of the activities on one of the offshore oil production platforms in the Forties field.
I was most impressed with the scale of the operations and stressed the need for a greater share of equipment orders

to come to home suppliers, and the desirability of facilitating the work of the trade unions.

Mr. Dalyell: Did my right hon. Friend learn anything about the need for greater safety in North Sea diving?

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir. Efforts are being made to deal with the hazardous problem facing divers, and I am sure that trade union involvement will be beneficial on the safety side.

Mr. Prescott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are not prepared to tolerate the number of deaths and accidents which occurred last winter? Will he take steps to bring in an order under the safety health legislation to remove the exemption of North Sea industry and to ensure that we have legislation to cover safety committees and trade organisations on rigs?

Mr. Benn: I had the opportunity when in Aberdeen of meeting the inter-union off-shore committee. That committee raised with me the problems of access to rigs by trade union officials and also other matters, because it was felt that the trade union representatives were not as involved as they should have been. I echo my hon. Friend's concern about safety matters. I have asked whether those concerned will prepare for consideration a charter in this respect which I intend to discuss with the four major unions, the T&GWU, the AUEW, the Boilermakers and my hon. Friend's union, the National Union of Seamen. I shall be in touch with the oil companies on this matter because I regard safety and trade union representation as going side by side in this respect.

Conservation

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's energy conservation programme.

Mr. Eadie: The Government's energy conservation programme continues to progress and the figures for energy consumption this year provide grounds for encouragement. The publicity campaign is continuing with increasing emphasis on advice to industry for which a pamphlet will shortly be published.
My right hon. Friend will now be taking into account the recommendations he has received from his Advisory Council


on Energy Conservation and looks forward to reading the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Mr. Rost: When will the Government stop tinkering with energy conservation matters and give them a higher priority? If the Government can find £1 billion to nationalise North Sea oil and can find a further £1 billion to set up the BNOC, why cannot they find relatively small sums to indulge in constructive capital investment in fuels which will produce a more rational energy use and bring a positive return to the national economy?

Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Gentleman will not believe the Government's reply on this subject, perhaps he will believe the evidence in the large industries concerned which have made substantial savings in energy conservation. That is the important fact, and the evidence can be examined. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a scheme covering grants and loans which is of assistance to industry. Nevertheless having heard the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and remembering that he fought the last election on a freedom platform, I am beginning to conclude that he sees the conservation campaign being achieved only by the introduction of the most Draconian measures.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Minister confirm that among the energy conservation measures which should commend themselves to the House are long-term contracts such as those between the British Gas Corporation and ICI? Will he take the opportunity, since the Secretary of State for Energy would not do so, to apologise to, in addition to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation for the partial, selective and misleading information he gave to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries? Will he tell the House whether he agrees that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is slipping badly even in his new job?

Mr. Eadie: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is "slipping badly" but certainly the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) must have defective hearing. His supplementary question was answered previously by my right hon. Friend. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has to pose a point which has already been answered.

Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received from the unions and the National Coal Board on the need for further Government financial support for the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme.

Mr. Eadie: The National Union of Mineworkers raised the matter during my right hon. Friend's meeting with it on 23rd June and mentioned it again in a letter dated 4th July.

Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend accept that whereas the new scheme is widely welcomed in the mining communities, there is a gap in the scheme's existing arrangements in respect of widows and commuted cases? Does he agree that if the Government were prepared to find a few additional million pounds for the scheme these cases will be brought into its ambit?

Mr. Eadie: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for mentioning that the pneumoconiosis scheme is of great benefit to thousands of people. The fact that the Government made a £100 million contribution has gone some way to assist the situation. I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend that although we are talking in terms of sums of money there is no danger of any legitimate claims not being met. The scheme was drawn up between the National Coal Board and the NUM. It is for those parties to discuss any amendments to the scheme such as those my hon. Friend has outlined to the House.

Mr. Kelley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present situation as a result of the scheme seems to indicate that a proper actuarial assessment was not made of the amount of money required to do justice to all the people who have been referred to by my hon. Friend? Is he aware that there are people who have settled out of court for minimal sums although they suffer from a high degree of disability? There are the widows who lost their husbands in the same circumstances as widows who lost their husbands after the specified date, but they receive only a miserable sum. Should there not be a


proper actuarial assessment of the money required?

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to the anomalies that exist in the scheme concerning commuted cases and the question of widows. I must remind him that the scheme was drawn up between the National Coal Board and the NUM. It is not a departmental scheme. It was not calculated actuarially as such by the Department but was discussed and agreed by the NUM and the National Coal Board. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the starting of the scheme with £100 million has made a substantial contribution towards the scheme which has been beneficial to so many people.

North Sea Oil (Extraction)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about the progress which is being made in the extraction of oil from the North Sea.

Mr. John Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 30th June by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).—[Vol. 894, c. 303–4.]

Mr. Gow: What special contribution does the Minister hope will be made by BNOC to the speedy and efficient extraction of oil from the North Sea? What lessons will he learn from the history of other nationally-owned corporations which should be applied in the case of BNOC?

Mr. Smith: I am confident that BNOC will make a constructive contribution to the exploitation of our Continental Shelf resources. It will also secure for this country adequate control and a proper return on what is a very important national asset.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend inform the official Opposition that their continued sniping at old-established nationalised industries is all to no avail when we are discussing the coal industry? After all, we have spent millions of pounds to restore years and years of Conservative neglect of the coal industry, whereas oil is a virgin area and we are dealing with it in the right way by taking public control.

Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition are behaving true to form.

Gas and Electricity Disconnections

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many households have had gas and electricity supplies, respectively, cut off because of the non-payment of accounts in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and by what percentage these figures have increased or fallen compared with five years previously.

Mr. Benn: As the detailed information requested is not readily available, I will ask the chairmen of the industries to write to the hon. Member. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad to take similar action in relation to the electricity industry in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that this information is available in Scotland and that I have obtained it? Is it not outrageous for the right hon. Gentleman, when he is increasing electricity prices by such a substantial amount, not to have information about the number of people whose supplies of electricity and gas are cut off because they are unable to pay their bills? Is this not a major and frightening problem in Britain? Should not the electricity boards be instructed by the Minister, as are the gas boards, to ensure that every possible way of making the payment of bills easier should be investigated, and in particular the direct payment of bills of people on long-term benefit by the Supplementary Benefit Commission?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman must know that I am not the Minister responsible for the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I can give him only the England and Wales figures. In terms of electricity, the number of domestic and commercial consumers disconnected was 120,000—that is, 0·7 per cent. of the total number. The figure for gas is about 34,000 cut-offs, or 0·36 per cent. of credit customers. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I am very anxious about the winter with substantially higher bills for gas and electricity consumers coming at a time when there will be a number of people unemployed, others on short time and others facing various difficulties. I have, as I promised the House, seen the


Chairman of the Electricity Council about the matter. I am writing to him as well as to Members of Parliament about the position, because it is of great concern to the whole community that a general desire to bring the nationalised industries into balance should not be followed by disconnections of a kind that would create serious hardship for many families.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Mozambique

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he has now had discussions with the Government of Mozambique about aid to that country; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): No discussions have taken place since my predecessor met with President Samora Machel in Dar es Salaam earlier in the year. The new Mozambique Government will obviously need time to take stock of the country's economic situation, but I hope that they will be in a position to begin detailed negotiations in the near future.

Mr. Blaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are two questions concerning this matter? The first is the question of any bilateral aid we may give and the second is the question of any aid that may be given in the context of the imposition of sanctions. Will he give the House an assurance that if we give aid in the latter context it will be only as part of a general arrangement involving other countries and under the United Nations?

Mr. Prentice: Certainly there are two aspects to this matter. On sanctions, Mozambique as a member of the United Nations will, we assume, carry out United Nations policy in this respect. Any aid that we give would not, of course, be conditional upon that but would be in support of Mozambique in its problems as a country applying sanctions along the lines which were described, for instance, in the communiqué on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference at Kingston. We hope that other donor countries in the United Nations will also provide aid.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the Mozambique economy deeply dependent

upon port and rail traffic with and miners' remittances from Malawi, Swaziland, Rhodesia and South Africa? As the Government are rightly anxious to help the development of this territory, should they not do everything to encourage co-operation and conciliation—not confrontation—between the different parts of Southern Africa?

Mr. Prentice: Of course we would encourage co-operation in general terms, but in the case of Rhodesia it is our policy and United Nations policy that sanctions should be applied.

World Food Council

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will publish a White Paper on the recent proceedings of the World Food Council.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The first session of the World Food Council was of short duration and mostly concerned with work of a preparatory and organisational nature. The Written Answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to a Question from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on 3rd July—[Vol. 894, c. 531.]—gives a brief account of the results of the first session.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British decision to contribute 100,000 tons of fertilisers at that meeting at a cost of £15 million is very welcome? Can he now take an initiative in the World Food Council to consider the consequences on world food supplies of the very large-scale purchases by the Soviet Union in the world grain market, which could produce a situation similar to that which occurred a year or two ago which disrupted the whole pattern of grain supplies throughout the world, especially to the developing countries?

Mr. Prentice: On the first point, I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. On the second point I should like notice, but I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Grylls: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's policy to concentrate their aid overseas on helping countries to grow their own food and that they will concentrate on rural development schemes because that


is the real long-term answer to helping the less-developed countries?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. It is our policy to concentrate more of our aid on agriculture and, indeed, on rural development generally. I hope to present shortly a White Paper which will spell out our policy in more detail.

Aid Policy

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he intends any adjustment of the policies of his Department, in view of Her Majesty's Government's anti-inflationary policy as outlined in the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation", Cmnd. 6151.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir.

Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind that it is usually the poorest countries which suffer most from the effect of world inflation and that it is the philosophy of the Labour Party to give most help to those who are most in need, will my right hon. Friend enlarge on his answer and state clearly and categorically that, despite the savage cuts in public expenditure outlined in the White Paper, there is no intention on the part of the Government of further decreasing the percentage of our gross national product which we spend on overseas aid?

Mr. Prentice: A reduction was announced in April of £10 million in what would have been the programme for 1975–76 and for 1976–77. Beyond that, public expenditure in general is under review and I cannot anticipate the result.
It is our stated intention as a Government to move as quickly as we can to the fulfilment of the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product. Meanwhile, within our aid programme we shall give greater priority than hitherto to the very poorest countries—those with a per capita income of $200 per year or less—and to the poorest groups within developing countries.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some adjustment is necessary in the case of India, which has been able to construct and explode a nuclear bomb? If the Indians can divert resources of that kind to such activities, surely India should not

get any hand-out from the United Kingdom in present circumstances.

Mr. Prentice: I do not think that Member of the House should describe development aid programmes as hand-outs. They are a contribution which the more affluent countries make and should make to the development plans of the developing countries. India is the biggest single aid recipient from this country, but in view of her size she is certainly not treated over-generously. Indeed, she gets a great deal less per capita than many other countries and has used that development aid very intelligently and very successfully over the years.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does the Minister agree that although overseas aid can play a vital and indispensable rôle in the development of poorer countries, some of the poorer countries have far greater inequalities of wealth than are to be found in the aid-giving countries and that the time has come when the countries which give generously should make clear to some of the recipient countries that they should bring about such changes in the structure of their own society and government as would enable development to take place rather faster than has been the case hitherto?

Mr. Prentice: I would go part of the way with that, but not all the way. We are dealing with independent countries. We are not in a paternalistic situation where we can dictate to them the political and social policies they should follow. One of the considerations that we have to bear carefully in mind is that where we are providing aid it will be used effectively. We have to judge the ability of a country to make effective use of our aid as well as judging its need for it.

Aid Programme

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister for Overseas Development by what percentage his overseas aid programme in the current year and in 1976–77, respectively, is greater or less in real terms than the programme for 1974–75.

Mr. Prentice: The net aid programme in 1975–76 expressed in 1974 constant prices is lower by 1·3 per cent. than in 1974–75. In cash terms, however, it shows an increase of some £100 million.


The net aid programme for 1976–77 is 1·1 per cent. higher than for 1974–75.

Mr. Taylor: In view of those disappointing figures and of the many demands on very limited resources, will the Minister consider whether it is wise to continue giving aid to India in view of the recent political developments there? Is it fair to ask British taxpayers to give a great deal of money to help to finance the programmes of a country which is at present destroying democracy and freedom and making nonsense of the rule of law?

Mr. Prentice: In a sense I answered that when I replied on the previous Question. I want to repeat from this Dispatch Box that it is not my business or that of Her Majesty's Government to determine the policy of other independent countries. There are within the world about 100 countries that receive aid from a number of sources, not only from Britain but from other aid donor countries and from international agencies. Many are not democracies. Some have internal practices of which we might disapprove. We have to ask two basic questions: do they need assistance, and can they make effective use of that assistance?

Mr. Lee: Although it would not be right or practical to investigate the political purity of all the countries which are aid recipients, and although many of us who are anti-Common Market regarded the Lomé Agreement as wholly inadequate because it did not provide for the poorest nations of South-East Asia, is my right hon. Friend nevertheless aware that some of us have misgivings about what is happening in India and are bound to share in some measure the sentiments expressed rather surprisingly from the other side of the House?

Mr. Prentice: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has reservations about what is happening in India. However, I hope he will not suggest that we should cut off aid to India or to other countries which may be pursuing policies of which hon. Members may not approve.
As for the extension of the Lomé Agreement, it is the policy of the Government to see the aid programme of the Community extended to non-associates. We shall be arguing for that policy

within all the machinery of the Community.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has twice sought refuge in the word "effectively" or "effective use". As that word is, on the face of it, imprecise since any expenditure is bound to produce some effect and to that extent be effective, will he essay a more precise definition and in particular say whether any qualitative criterion is involved?

Mr. Prentice: No; without giving a very long lecture I will not attempt it. I suggest to the House that a study both of the British aid programme and of the aid programmes of other donors, of the United Nations agencies, of the World Bank and other similar bodies, shows that over the years we have become very much more expert in assessing development projects. So also have the developing countries themselves in many cases become much more effective in their development projects and avoided earlier mistakes. On the whole, the experience of recent years has been more successful than was the experience 15 to 20 years ago.

English Language Teaching

Mr. Luce: asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether the Government are making any contribution towards the teaching of the English language in the Third World.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. We attach great importance to this. In collaboration with the British Council, my Department supports the provision of skilled manpower from this country to fill teaching, advisory and other specialist posts; arranges training for teachers and teacher trainees; and supplies books and other equipment for educational and training institutions in developing countries.

Mr. Luce: As about one-third of the world can neither read nor write, and as English is a second language in so many underdeveloped countries, does not the Minister agree that it is a British interest to promote the teaching of English in the Third World? Therefore, will he do his best to encourage English teachers, or teachers of English, to go out to the Third World and work there, particularly at a time when there is growing unemployment in this country?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. My original reply indicated that my predecessors have been giving priority to our programmes. I wish to continue it. The House may like to know that there are at present about 800 English teachers in specialised posts abroad involved in the teaching of English.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite his encouraging reply the comparative figures for France indicate that we are not doing nearly as well as we should be and that in the year for which I have been able to obtain figures—incidentally, not from his Department—the French had over 7,300 people abroad teaching French and the comparative figure obtained from the British Council for the same year was 506 posts for the teaching of English?
In the light of those comparative figures, will my right hon. Friend undertake a thorough review of his Department's programme for teaching English abroad and undertake to devote to this purpose a higher proportion of his admittedly limited funds?

Mr. Prentice: I will certainly study that comparison. The House will know that there are other aid donors which provide English teachers abroad. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand all have aid programmes which involve people going abroad to teach English. This is in addition to the British programme to which I referred.

Food Surpluses (Disposal)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister for Overseas Development what recent discussions he has had with the EEC Commission on the disposal of surplus food to the underdeveloped and undernourished nations of the world.

Mr. Prentice: I have had no such discussions but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the House on 24th July—[Vol. 896, c. 793.]—of the revised arrangements for the sale of EEC skimmed milk powder to developing countries. The selling price is being reduced to about half the current commercial price and the scheme has been extended to include direct sales to the Governments of developing countries. Apart from such specific measures to dispose of surplus

food, the EEC is also providing substantial quantities of food aid to the developing countries.

Mr. Hamilton: In thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to go a little further and make representations himself within the Community to make sure that these surpluses, if they are to be produced—they are indefensible in any event—will be allocated by the EEC to those who need them most? Will he take it upon himself to ensure that they go to the undernourished world rather than leave this task to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Prentice: The subject matter overlaps the food aid question. Inasmuch as we are concerned with the disposal of agricultural surpluses and the interests of the farming community in Europe, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend. To the extent that we are concerned with food aid, it is clearly a matter for me. Certainly the Government have indicated that we support the proposals of the EEC for a larger food aid programme from the Community to the developing world.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if Her Majesty's Government took steps to try to bring about a co-ordinated food aid programme between the European Economic Community and the food-producing parts of the Commonwealth, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which have food surpluses?

Mr. Prentice: These matters are discussed between Governments. The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD is a forum in which donors from the non-Communist world generally come together, compare notes and exchange information on matters of this kind. I am not sure that a joint programme under a separate organisation would necessarily be helpful in this respect.

Mr. Spearing: Concerning the skimmed milk aspect of food aid, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is he now satisfied with the arrangements made in the EEC in regard to the commercial sale of these foods, particularly for commercial baby food?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend has asked a supplementary question which


touches on the subject matter of Question No. 36, which has not been reached. This matter has been followed up since he received an answer on 16th May from my right hon. Friend who preceded me in this office. The position is that it has not been found necessary to produce a standard form of guarantee, but in the few cases where guarantees are needed against unreasonable commercial exploitation this is discussed with the recipient countries and guarantees are obtained against the sort of thing my hon. Friend has in mind.

DEVOLUTION

Mr. Dalyell: I ask for the forbearance of the House on a busy day in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
what purports to be the revelation to the Scottish Press of the blueprint of the Government's White Paper on Devolution.
In one of the longest Consolidated Fund Bill debates on a single subject since the war, this House, to the irritation of many of those who had subjects lower down the list of subjects for debate, discussed devolution for seven solid hours on Thursday evening and Friday morning, ending at 4.13 a.m. with an understandably careful winding-up speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
At precisely that time, and unknown to us, the printing presses of the Daily Record were churning out the details of plans, alleged to have been developed in the Cabinet Office, purporting to come from Government sources, for, among other things, a Scottish Cabinet system, for a Scottish Prime Minister, for so-called US-style decision-making congressional committees, and for an Assembly in Edinburgh, with powers of direct or indirect taxation, not to mention the assertion that the Scottish Assembly would have powers over the Scottish Development Agency and trade and industry in a year's time.
The issue is important, as described in the Daily Record, in that, if such plans were to go ahead, we should be on the road which leads inevitably to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The issue is urgent, in that once such ideas become embodied in White Papers and Queen's Speeches, it is more difficult for Governments to drop them without becoming involved in the kind of morass that we had during the passage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill on reform of the House of Lords.
The issue is definite, in that a Government whose Attorney-General takes out an injunction, rightly or wrongly, against The Times Newspapers, against Mrs. Crossman and Jonathan Cape Limited, concerning Cabinet events of 10 long years ago, has an obligation to do something about what appears to be a massive leak, thought out and designed to achieve certain political purposes, on a delicate issue which is both topical and controversial.
If a positive Government denial is not forthcoming—and I very much hope that it will be, although I understand the nature of the business in the next three days—I ask, Mr. Speaker, that some of your own time, available on Thursday might be allowed for a return to the devolution issue, in the light of the new circumstances.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): Commenting on what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said about what he read in a certain newspaper—apparently taking it for gospel that it must be true—it might be helpful if I observe that I will undertake to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a statement tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not quite certain whether his statement pre-empts my decision. The hon. Gentleman gave me appropriate notice and he put his points clearly, as usual. They are important points. It is not for me to pronounce on the merits. No doubt the matter will be pursued in other ways—there are a number of ways open—at some time. I am afraid that the answer under Standing Order No. 9 is "No".

Later—

Mr. Donald Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the remarks made just now by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)


about the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on devolution which pre-empted certain other debates, may I point out that none of my hon. Friends spoke for anything like the length of time for which the hon. Member himself spoke—or, for that matter, for the length of time for which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke?

Mr. Speaker: I read that speech and the number of interruptions to it.

RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR WALSALL, NORTH

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Leader of the House had received on Thursday night an application from the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to appear at this House to give a personal explanation, I asked you, Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning, whether the Leader of the House had given you any intimation that he wished to make a statement about allowing me to move the motion or move it himself. Your answer, Mr. Speaker, was:
No, I have had no such request, nor do I think that the Leader of House has had time to consider the letter. Now that I have informed the House of the letter, the matter will be considered.
Now that the Leader of the House has had the weekend in which to consider it, may I ask you whether he has given you, Mr. Speaker, any intimation that he wishes to make a statement to the House or to allow me to move that motion?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I have been asked to reply. As you, Mr. Speaker, explained last Monday, it would in present circumstances require an order of the House to secure the attendance of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North. I think it is unlikely that time can be found before the recess to debate the necessary motion, and it may be better in any event to review the matter when the House resumes.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a great pity, because the right hon. Gentleman

the Member for Walsall, North cannot now make his statement for two or three months. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to give an assurance that a statement will be made as soon as the House resumes?

Mr. Mellish: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman has said something. I really cannot permit the matter to be debated now. The Chair has no power of initiative in the matter; therefore, it is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member must pursue the matter with his right hon. Friend in other ways.

Mr. William Hamilton: Could it be made quite clear that if a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North is to be allowed, it will have to be submitted to you first, Mr. Speaker, for your approval, and that the right hon. Gentleman cannot say whatever he likes? It is very important to get this on record, because the debate on this matter was prevented in this House on the ground that it would be prejudging court proceedings. If a statement were to be allowed, unabridged, before you saw it, Mr. Speaker, that too, presumably, would be prejudging court proceedings, so it is very important to establish that before any such statement is made it is seen by you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), a very experienced parliamentarian, is now asking me to rule on a hypothetical matter. If the House decides to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North to make a statement, I shall have to consider my position in regard to the nature of the statement. I shall wait until the House has passed the resolution before I go any further into that matter. There are difficulties, but I have been giving it some consideration.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, there is nothing to stop a motion being moved forthwith that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) do attend the House. I propose to move that.

Mr. William Hamilton: Object.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be for me to say whether I can accept such a


motion. Objection has been taken and I must tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) that I cannot accept it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As various statements have been made about the rights of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), is it not the case that if the right hon. Gentleman so desires he can now issue a written statement to every right hon. and hon. Member of this House—and, indeed, could have done so at any time during the past six months? The right hon. Gentleman could spend his time doing it now, and any right hon. or hon. Member who wished to read it could do so.

Mr. Speaker: After that useful intervention, the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 14

RATE OF INVALIDITY PENSION FOR PERSONS UNDER PENSIONABLE AGE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 28, after "shall" insert
for any period of interruption of employment".

3.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2, in page 7, line 32, leave out from "year" to end of line and insert
which includes or included the first day of entitlement to the pension in that period".

Mr. O'Malley: These are technical Government amendments to make it clear how invalidity pension is to be calculated.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 7, line 32, at end insert—
(2) Regulations may—

(a) provide for an invalidity pension to be payable to a pensioner who, whilst continuing to be incapacitated for normal full-time work, becomes capable of undertaking light work in circumstances which satisfy prescribed conditions;
(b) prescribe the amount such a pensioner may earn before his pension is affected in any way; and
(c) prescribe the effect any earnings additional to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) above will have on a pensioner's entitlement to invalidity pension."

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment which was moved successfully in another place was intended


to enable regulations to be made allowing invalidity benefit to be paid in addition to the earnings of those performing light work, whether full time or part time. At the time that the amendment was moved, it was said to have the considerable advantage that the change mooted was consistent with modern ideas of work and rehabilitation, that it was non-controversial in that it was eminently reasonable, and that it had no implications for public expenditure and therefore in no way threatened the prerogatives of this House, unlike the purpose of a previous amendment.
If those arguments were true, I freely admit that there would be a great deal to be said for the amendment. However, I hope to be able to persuade the House that they are not.
It would, of course, be open to the Government, as a rather simpler way round the moving of the Government's amendment, to leave this Lords amendment on the statute book and simply not use the regulating-making power that it contains or, alternatively, the regulation-making power could have been construed in such a restrictive way as to prevent the implementation of the purpose of the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted that the Government have been right to choose the rather more difficult route, which is to seek to persuade the House of the undesirability of this amendment by discussing the principle of it.
I begin by making it clear that, although there are certain technicalities involved, the very simple principle that leads the Government to reject this amendment is that invalidity pension is dependent on the qualifying condition that the claimant is incapable of work and that to annex this to the situation that the claimant is capable of light work is to put together incompatible and mutually exclusive conditions. It is simply that basic principle which is the reason why we believe that this amendment should not be accepted.
I am aware that the analogy was drawn in another place with the retirement pension and the earnings rule which, of course, allows someone who is in receipt of a pension also to obtain earnings to a certain level at the same time. One of the difficulties is that we speak about

an invalidity pension which appears to give a superficial analogy with the retirement pension. However, the invalidity pension would be better termed "long-term sickness benefit". That would make it clear that it is not correct to seek an analogy with retirement pension because long-term sickness benefit is incompatible with the capacity for light work.
But, whatever view we may take about paying the old-age pension to people above a certain age, which is the effective result of abolishing the earnings rule, the payment of an automatic pension to everyone below a certain age has never been strongly advocated. Therefore, unless that view is taken, we need for people who are below pension age some means of deciding who gets the benefit and who does not. That simply is the basis of the criterion of incapacity for work.
As the result of having such a test, if the logic of the argument is accepted, I do not think that we should make it inoperable by making modifications which are totally inconsistent with it. That is the principle on which we base the rejection of this amendment.
However, there are one or two other relevant matters. First, it is a question of cost. It was said that this had no implications for public expenditure. This is not the case. If we take only those who are in sheltered employment and a very small proportion of those who are in open employment, it may be estimated that there are at least 20,000 disabled people who would fit into any reasonable definition of fitness only for light work. If we make the rather unrealistic assumption that each of these has only the current single person's rate of invalidity pension in addition to his earnings, the cost would be about £12 million in invalidity benefit for new beneficiaries. In Government social security terms £12 million is not an enormous sum, but it is an enormous sum in terms of the new constraints on public expenditure.
But even that probably underestimates what are likely to be the financial consequences if we accept this amendment. If an invalidity pensioner, who now gets as a married man with a wife and two children up to £30·70 a week and who from November will get £35·50 a week, were allowed to get in addition earnings from full-time work, it is reasonable to


suppose that the man working full time in sheltered employment and getting, say, £35 a week would also expect to have invalidity benefit in addition to his earnings from light work. Therefore, there is bound to be consequential further expenditure of a not insubstantial kind. But that breaches the simple principle that only individuals incapable of work should receive invalidity pension. The man working full time in sheltered employment cannot be considered incapable of work.
There is a third point of difficulty. I put the least emphasis on it, but it needs to be taken into account by the House. I refer to the problem of operating the benefit if the amendment were accepted. The basic evidence for invalidity benefit is the same basic evidence as is required for sickness benefit, which is a short-term counterpart of invalidity benefit, and that is a simple medical certificate from the general practitioner who has responsibility for the patient.
I am advised that those countries which pay to sick and disabled people benefits which are designed to co-exist with their earnings almost always require four to six, or more, foolscap pages of evidence. Therefore, there can be no doubt, though I do not regard this as a decisive consideration, that if we were to change the whole character of the benefit in the way suggested by the amendment it would have a considerable impact on the administrative system, and lead to considerable extra financial costs for administrative reasons.
So far I have been rather negative, but frank, in saying why we believe that the amendment should not be accepted. Turning to the aim of the amendment, I shall indicate the ways in which the Government believe that to a large degree we are already meeting it. I readily admit that the therapeutic earnings limit goes to only a small number of persons in specialised circumstances, but it has been extended outside the hospital system where it can be shown that the person has good cause, which normally means doctors' approval. It was raised as recently as April from £4·50 a week to £7. I accept that it is a strictly limited concept, and that the earnings figure is only one aspect, and not the most important, of measuring incapacity for work. It is not necessarily the sort of figure that

should go up at each uprating, but there can be difficulties if over a time it begins significantly to lose value. Therefore, I undertake—although without commitment as to the outcome—that we shall reconsider it before long and see whether a further increase would be appropriate.
Secondly, our House of Commons Paper last September on "Social Security Provision for Chronically Sick and Disabled People" promised consultations about the whole range of questions affecting the finances of the disabled earner. I am hopeful that we shall be able to announce a new initiative in this direction before long, designed, perhaps inevitably in present circumstances, primarily to explore how best to use existing resources. We are very much aware of the difficulties of the disabled earner, and are looking for new initiatives.
Thirdly, we are exploring the possibility of a small study of the effects of the present therapeutic earnings limit, This is a difficult area for research, but we believe that useful work on a limited scale may be possible.
To sum up, we disagree with the Lords amendment because it envisages radical changes which could not be adopted without a great deal more thought and examination of complex conditions. Those changes would bring into invalidity benefit many people not now entitled to it, and add several millions of pounds to present costs, without any rehabilitation gain. They would involve a substantial administrative task. But the basic reason is that the amendment would completely change the whole principle of invalidity pensions, by giving it to persons who are not incapable of work, in as much as the criterion that they are capable of light work at present precisely excludes, contrary to what was said in another place, their entitlement to invalidity benefit.

Mr. Norman Fowler: This is not the first time we have debated the rule in question. The Minister has largely repeated what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said in the other place when the amendment was debated and agreed to by the Lords. It has caused concern both in this House and in the Lords, and most of all among the organisations representing the interests of disabled people, such as the Disablement Income Group, which has written to many hon. Members about the matter.
We are basically concerned here with the position of the invalidity pensioner, the man or woman not of retirement age who, because of some form of incapacity, is defined as incapable of work. Many such people will not be able to work at all, but some may, and for those who struggle to do something there is the therapeutic allowance, an amount which they can earn without losing their pensions.
There are two points to be made about the question. The first concerns the amount of the therapeutic allowance. In 1972 it was £4·50 a week. In April this year it was raised to £7. We have noted what the hon. Gentleman said about it, although, as a pledge of future action, it seemed to me to be somewhat short of a promise to do anything. Let us remember that the increase to £7 followed a Government defeat in the Lords, who voted for £13. The Government compromised with £7, and that is now the figure.
Secondly, if the pensioner earns 1p more than his £7 he loses the entire pension. There is no tapering arrangement. The man who earns £6 a week keeps his entire invalidity pension, while the man who earns £8 loses the entire pension. This position is therefore fundamentally different from that of the pensioner who can earn £20 a week without losing anything from his pension. It is also fundamentally different from the position of the man on supplementary benefit, who at least loses on a pound-for-pound basis. We are dealing not with an earnings rule but with an earnings stop.
That being so, in the case of the therapeutic allowance the Lords have performed another useful service. They have forced us to think again about the basis of the earnings stop rule. It is here that I find the views of the Disablement Income Group, and Peter Large in particular, crucially important. The group considers that there are two major situations in which the rule militates against the interests of the disabled. First, there is the situation of the man struck down by disability who, after a period, may be able to take up work again. It is likely that it will be a slow process, a process of rehabilitation which it is in the interest of the man and the country should be successful. It is often not possible to jump from the definition "incapable of

work" to the definition "fit for work". An employer may require that the man does only part-time work, in which the employer can develop confidence in the man and, perhaps more important, the disabled person can develop confidence in his own ability. In that kind of proposition the present rule acts as a disincentive and a discouragement to rehabilitation.
4.0 p.m.
The other side of the coin is the case of a person in a deteriorating condition, such as multiple sclerosis, who may struggle on and work after the point has come when he should have slowed down. This point is put forcefully by the Disablement Income Group. If there were an earnings rule it is argued that he might be encouraged to slow up sooner and it would be in his own interests to do so.
From both points of view there is a strong case in favour of the Lords amendment. From the Government point of view it is of some relevance that this amendment does not place them under an obligation to spend extra money as at this moment. It is not obligatory upon them to take action at this point in time. In our social security debates we are coming to know it as a piece of structure legislation. It can have no effect until the Government activate it, and that will probably not be at once.
The Government cannot object to structure legislation because they are passing and introducing in this House a large amount of structure legislation. Therefore, if the Government want to oppose this measure, so be it. What they are opposing is the principle. What we are supporting is a measure that will act in the interests of disabled people. It is supported by powerful and strong voices, such as those of the Disablement Group. We shall support the Lords amendment.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh): I do not wish to detain the House for more than two minutes but this is an important point. I had a great deal of sympathy with the Under-Secretary when he explained the nature of the invalidity benefit. I disagree with him on the definition of "incapacity for work". It is around this phrase that the whole argument, following through all its stages, has flowed.
No one who supports their Lordships' amendment would disagree with the


Under-Secretary when he said that one must define fairly precisely what one means by "incapacity for work". The amendment uses the words "incapacity for normal full-time work". We would all agree that we would not wish to extend invalidity benefit, even to people who are in many cases apparently severely incapacitated. We ask the Under-Secretary to look at the situation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) pointed out, from the point of view of the person who is heavily incapacitated but who has a certain propensity to do some work.
This is recognised in what the Under-Secretary has called the "therapeutic earnings allowance". It is not only therapeutic. Infinitely more important is the social integration aspect. Throughout the many debates we have had in this House and in Committee on how modern society should cope with our incapacitated colleagues we have decided that increasingly the aim should be to integrate them into society and that the cash, the aid and the care of society should not be to give them a comfortable existence in institutions and in disabled ghettos but to integrate them into the hurly-burly of ordinary life. In inviting the House to reject their Lordships' amendment, I do not believe that the Under-Secretary has addressed himself to this aspect. If we were to accept their Lordships' amendment, he would give recognition to this aspect without selling the Treasury brief.
Anyone who has been a Minister in a spending Department knows how severe at any moment in time Treasury instructions are to Ministers not to give any public money away. I sympathise with the Under-Secretary. However, if he accepts this amendment he need not, as of today, increase public expenditure by one penny. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State and architect of the Bill will recognise that much of it is for 20 years hence and that it is right that we should pass legislation that is structurally correct even if, on the phasing of it, for economic reasons we have to be greatly restrained in how quickly it can be implemented. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman gives anything away in terms of public expenditure.
In summing up he made cooing noises that he was sympathetic to the £7 limit. He raised it from £4·50 to £7. Let us

put the £7 into its current context. That amount of £7 is only £1 more than the basic wage increase that the Government, in their White Paper, are allowing in these counter-inflationary days for one year for the mass of the community.
I beg the Under-Secretary to realise that those of us who believe that their Lordships are right do not expect the Government immediately to raise these allowances to large proportions. Nor do I accept the figures that he gave the House. I do not want to be unfair to him but I should like to see them written up. Possibly he would be kind enough to send me a note—I shall not press him to reply now—to explain how they are made up because, without detaining the House, I am sceptical about the assumptions on which they are based. It is not necessary to accept the view that there should be an open cheque for all handicapped workers in every sheltered employment in order to support their Lordships. The Under-Secretary was arguing as if that were the implication of their Lordships' amendment. I do not believe that it is.
The House, in the spirit of the Government in moving the Second Reading of the Bill—that it is a structural Bill preparing for the future—would be wise to support their Lordships.

Mr. John Hannam: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Fowler) in asking the House to retain the Lords amendment. I have the feeling that the Under-Secretary was a little hesitant in giving his support to his brief. From reading the Lords amendment we can see that all the powers are given to the Government to control, to any extent they wish, the degree of expenditure which the Government may wish to make.
In the debate on 12th March on the Social Security Benefits Bill, I and other hon. Members endeavoured to move an amendment to relieve disabled people of this harsh wages stop. We had a limit then of £4·50 for therapeutic earnings, and this was raised, during that debate, to £7 a week. We would all welcome a hint that this might be raised again some time in the future. In that event, the Government would not accept the principle that a definition of light work could


be arrived at so as to allow invalids who are incapable of normal full-time work but can perform light duties on one or two days a week to receive their invalidity pension at a reduced level. We suggested then that an earnings rule be applied in stages from £13 to £17 with a ceiling of the amount that could be deducted from the pension. The powers to propose that ceiling are in this Lords amendment. We ask that this should be introduced rather than having a 100 per cent. cut-off, which would occur if a disabled person earned even 1p or 2p more than £7 a week.
During that debate on 12th March 1 and other hon. Members presented several cases of people who were suffering from multiple sclerosis and other disabilities who had performed light secretarial or research work for a few hours and found themselves losing their entire invalidity allowance of £27 or £30 a week purely because their earnings had totalled £8 a week over that period. I can understand the Government's fears that there would be a breach of their rather precious definition of "total incapacity for work". However, the Lords amendment clearly gives the power to the Government to regulate and prescribe the limit of earnings and the amount of invalidity pension which would be affected.
I hope that we can all agree that the time has come for some intermediate definition of "partial" incapacity, just as is provided in the constant attendance allowance, which allows for attendance by "day or night" to be a qualification for the allowance. There can be no doubt that this rule is working very harshly. It affects those whom we would like to see brought back into some degree of integration with a normal working life and who would like to relieve the State of financial responsibility which they are placing upon the State.
It was stated in another place by Lord Crawshaw, who moved the amendment there, that if we were to help disabled people to get back into normal employment we would be saving the Exchequer money by ending supplementary benefit payments and by taking these people from the top rates of pensions. Apparently Lord Wells-Pestell, the Minister, had informed Lord Crawshaw by letter that the Government would prefer to handle

this problem by the use of regulations. This is just what the amendment seeks to do. There is no charge on the hard-pressed Treasury unless the Government introduce such a charge. Everything is left in the Minister's hands as to what improvements can be prescribed by these regulations, and when. Surely if workers at Jaguar can work four days a week and draw unemployment benefit on the fifth day, there is an indefensible case for a disabled person to work one day a week without losing his pension.
Speaking as secretary of the all-party Diseablement Group and as a member of DIG, I regret that the Secretary of State has asked the House to reject the amendment. I hope the House will show some regard for the desires of chronically disabled people to integrate more fully into normal life, and I hope that the Government recognise that in this amendment they have power to prescribe by regulations the amount to be allowed.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I wish to express my disappointment at the Government's failure to accept the Lords amendment. I believe it is as widely and as flexibly drawn as it possibly can be, to enable the Government to bring in the proper regulations to suit the situation.
In an earlier stage of the Bill I said that the Government should find a way of mitigating the effect of the earnings stop. It does not affect many people. The Under-Secretary of State said that it affected only a very small number of people, and I think that, although the number is small, this stop is a very important factor in their lives. Having experienced some of the effects of trying to get back to work after disablement, I know the effort and the strength of character required in order to do so.
I am therefore disappointed that, although the Government appear to have accepted the general principle behind the amendment, they are not prepared to do anything about it at this stage. I cannot understand why they have not studied the effects of the therapeutic earnings limit. This matter has been bandied about for some time. We have discussed it and we have expressed our strong feelings about it. The Department ought to study it and let us have more information about the effect of the therapeutic earnings limit as soon as possible.
If there is a Division, I shall support my hon. Friends, because I am fed up about the whole matter.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton: I rise not as a frequent contributor to social security debates but as a fairly regular contributor to financial debates and frequently on the subject of assistance to the disabled and other similar matters.
I support the amendment and what my hon. Friends have said, not least because, having listened to the Under-Secretary, I was not at all sure whether he himself was convinced by his own argument. If he was, I can only say that he did not succeed in convincing me, and, indeed, I hope he has not succeeded in convincing himself either.
The Under-Secretary touched on an administrative argument, and I say this to him as fairly as I can. He touched on the argument lightly, so much so that it did not seem to me to be worth putting. He referred to the number of sheets of paper which might have to be filled in. There are many problems which have to be dealt with by filling in sheets of paper, for instance in connection with our complicated tax and social security system. If that argument had any real force we would have to sweep away a large part of our administrative system and throw it out of the window.
As to the question of cost, my hon. Friends have disposed of that with some ease. The amendment does not automatically involve any extra cost. It is clear from the amount of scope involved in regulation making in the amendment that the cost could be determined largely by the Government. In addition, we are all entitled to be very wary of figures for costs which are given in this kind of argument because so often when they are investigated we find that they have been worked out on a simplistic basis and that no account has been taken of the gain which would accrue to the gross domestic product as a result of the extra employment created or the extra tax revenue.
I am sorry that the Chancellor popped into the Chamber as though he were about to announce some great concession, and then popped out again. I should have liked to say this to him. It is high time that the Department of Health and Social

Security and the Treasury got together on some of these matters. Half the time their figures do not add up, and there is every sign that the people in one Department have not talked to people in the other Department. They come along with crude figures relating to the social security system, and we never get a proper sophisticated analysis of the effect of the measure. We do not need to take seriously the argument about the cost of this amendment.
Then we come to the ground on which the Minister based most of his case, the ground of principle. This ground disappears as soon as one contemplates the existence of the therapeutic earnings allowance. Either there is a principle that this is not paid to anybody who works at all, or there is not. By any dictionary definition of the word "principle", that argument falls straight away. Even if we accepted that there was a principle which the Minister was entitled to defend, I would say that I do not agree with a principle whereby a person who works at all loses the whole of the benefit.
The social effect of this situation, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), can be very damaging indeed. I could hardly believe my ears when I thought I heard the Minister say that if the amendment were accepted, these rather theoretical costs that would arise would have no rehabilitative gain. I think I have got his words right—"no rehabilitative gain". One has only to talk to people in the Disablement Income Group or to read some of the things written by people concerned with these problems to know that their considered view is that this rule is actively preventing people from going back to work who would otherwise do so. It is causing them to become totally dependent and to make no real effort to get back into an ordinary working life. If we can do anything to mitigate that effect, it seems to me, contrary to what the Minister said, that there is a clear rehabilitative gain.
No doubt other hon. Members have also received comments from Mr. Peter Large, who has passed on a letter from Miss Diana Irish, the General Secretary of the Spinal Injuries Association. Mr. Large points out that a disabled man with a wife and two small children could be receiving an invalidity pension and


allowance totalling £30·70 a week—quite a substantial sum. If that man earns more than £7 a week he loses it all. To earn £8 a week he has to sacrifice £30·70.
Who in his right mind, when he becomes capable of earning £7 a week but not a great deal more, would bother to do so? The very altruistic might, and so might those who are very keen to get back to work. But if a person was only marginally interested or was in a "don't care" frame of mind, which is quite possible in these difficult circumstances, why should he bother to earn £12 or £15 a week if he will lose £30 a week? It is simple, straightforward madness that we should have a system that imposes this choice on him.
Diane Irish says in her letter that it is quite apparent that the current system,
does take away from many disabled men and women any incentive to find any form of work".
She particularly expresses her concern at the fact that younger disabled people, in their late teens for example, could quickly become accustomed to living on a fairly substantial sum of public money. There is little point in them making an effort to earn and to become independent because the system encourages them to turn in on themselves and not to seek ways of overcoming their difficulty and disability in order to play a part in society, as many, if they were given some slight encouragement, would wish to do.
These are important points that cannot be dismissed. One can see these situations occurring in families. They can sink into a closed, sheltered, cloistered life. There is no great purpose in trying to take part as much as possible in normal life because of these grave financial disincentives.
The Minister said the Government were looking for new initiatives to help the disabled, but he is now rejecting a new initiative. Why not accept it and see what he can do to make it work? I accept that this is a difficult problem, but if the Government accepted the amendment, they would not have to do anything. It would act as a prod and an embarrassment to them on the statute book and would be a constant reminder to get on with the initiatives the Minister was talking about as a matter of urgency. I can see every argument for the amendment

and I cannot see the harm which the Minister suggested it would cause. It would at least be a step in the direction of pressing the Minister and the Department to get on with the job of doing something about this difficult problem on which action is necessary.

Mr. Meacher: One of the factors in the debate has been that it would be perfectly harmless—this was referred to by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton)—if the Government accepted the regulation-making powers in the amendment because they would not involve any immediate cost implications. To accept any Lords amendment purely because it was permissive when there was no intention by the Government to activate it, for the reasons of principle I have given, would be deceptive and very far from the honourable course. I dismiss the argument that we should accept the amendment because it has no immediate implications. We have to consider the issue of principle and whether it is appropriate that we should proceed in this way.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I assume the Minister would not disagree that every week his Department is passing structure legislation, which will not come into effect for some years. How does he distinguish between this legislation and the matter we are now discussing?

Mr. Meacher: Very simply. The structure legislation we pass is legislation with a structure that is appropriate, whereas this structure legislation, if it can be called that, is not appropriate for the reasons of principle I have already given.
I accept that there are issues about how we can provide further assistance, particularly for the long-term disabled, but this amendment is concerned with whether they should receive an invalidity pension on top of their earnings. An invalidity pension is given because a person is incapable of working, and it would be inappropriate for it to be added on top of earnings.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) put two arguments to which I should reply. He said that if we accepted the amendment it would help the person who was slowly working his way back and that it was not possible to move quickly from long-term sickness to


full employment. I accept that there is a period in which a person might be moving from one state to another, but the logic of the hon. Member's argument would presumably mean that if an able-bodied man was off work sick and gradually recovering, he would be entitled to some sickness benefit while performing certain light work before taking up his normal work again. That is a reductio ad absurdum, but we do not provide any such transitional benefit and it would be inappropriate to extend that concept into long-term benefits. They are basically the same kind of benefit.
The hon. Member's other argument concerned a person who might, for example, be suffering from disseminated sclerosis and might be able to retire from work more gradually. I accept that there is an issue here, and it is a matter on which such a person needs to be assisted. But if we accept the amendment, the hon. Gentleman has not answered the problem that it could apply to very many more people than those he is rightly trying to help. It would, for example, lead to pressure, which would be very difficult to resist, in the case of those people in full-time sheltered employment who are capable of only light work, but who in no sense could be construed as being in the same category as the long-term disabled. It would be very difficult to exclude them.
I have made clear that the Government intend to do more. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made fun of my remarks, suggesting that they did not sound as if we were going to do anything, but that is a little rum coming from him. His party is pursuing an economic policy whose object, as far as we can see, is to cut public expenditure very much more than even this Government are considering. It ill becomes him to suggest that we are not considering ways, within very tight financial constraints, of moving forward. I did not want to mention this, but the hon. Gentleman tempted me. Since we came to office we have spent an extra £1,000 million in real benefits. It is unfair to say that we are not looking for ways in which we can assist these people within our very tight financial constraints.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his promise and undertaking?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Meacher: Yes. I mentioned three initiatives which we were prepared to consider. The first was whether the therapeutic earnings limit, which was raised as recently as April from £4·50 to £7, should be further increased. I am not making a commitment; I am merely saying that my right hon. Friend will consider this as a priority. However, I believe that this is an important area in which we can perhaps increasingly help the long-term disabled.
One of the difficulties with the therapeutic earnings limit is that there is a straight cut-off; there is no taper. It is appropriate to consider without commitment whether there should be a taper. There are difficulties about administrative rules because some people are always on the wrong side of them. It would be proper to consider whether there should be a phased decrease in the benefit.

Mr. David Price: The disabled do not fall into clear categories and, therefore, we can all agree on the principle of a taper. We have it in the earnings rule for the old. Why not have it for the disabled?

Mr. Meacher: I am trying to make it clear, although plainly I am having difficulty in doing so, that there is an in-between state. Some people clearly are much less disabled than others and they may be capable of light work. I accept that such people need to be assisted. Invalidity benefit is conceptually not the most appropriate benefit with which to operate. I am saying no more than that. However, I have to rely on the belief of hon. Members opposite in my sincerity when I say that we shall consider other means of positively meeting the point.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) spoke in terms of social integration. That is a principle which we and the Opposition entirely support. We want to bring the disabled much more closely into the mainstream of society. But turning invalidity benefit upside down is not the way to integrate the disabled into society—by, for example, comparing people on that benefit with £35·50 a week after November with people in sheltered employment. That is not the proper way to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman indicated that he believed that what is in the amendment


is structurally correct. I have indicated that in our view it is not. It is far more appropriate to consider other ways of solving the problem, particularly that with regard to the therapeutic earnings limit. The hon. Gentleman challenged me on the figures. I am prepared to write to him if he is still mystified after hearing what I have to say.
There is a substantial number of disabled people who are capable of light work. They are in sheltered employment, or in open employment or, in some cases, are receiving the social security benefits which are paid to people who are unemployed. The number depends on the precision of the definition, but there are well over 13,000 disabled people in sheltered employment, 60,000 unemployed registered disabled people and ½ million to 1 million disabled people in open employment. I have therefore very modestly taken only those in sheltered employment and only a small proportion of those in open employment in suggesting that the number involved is 20,000. On the assumption that they were merely receiving a current single person's invalidity pension on top of earnings—and that is bound to be an underestimate in many cases- the cost of the amendment would be £12 million.
The hon. Member for Braintree and others who have pooh-poohed the public expenditure implications are quite wrong. Clearly there are public expenditure implications. They may not be overriding implications, but they cannot be ignored.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to a saving of public expenditure. There may be savings in supplementary benefits in some cases, but there are many people in receipt of invalidity pension at a level which will not lead to savings in supplementary benefits. As against his contention, one has to take into account what I would

regard as the minimum implications of public expenditure which I have mentioned.

We are not unmindful of the needs of this group of people, but because invalidity benefit is not the most appropriate benefit by which to proceed, I hope that on consideration the Opposition will not press the amendment to a Division. The amendment would totally breach the principle of invalidity benefit whereby we would be forced, or the Opposition would be forced if they were to succeed us, to provide substantial sums of public expenditure for groups which are not the main object of the amendment but would be bound to be included in it.

That is not the best way for social policy to proceed. I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept my statement that we intend positively, and I hope soon, to come forward with further initiatives which will be relevant to the group of people we are discussing.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The more I listened to the argument of the Under-Secretary of State, the more I found it difficult to understand. He has said that the Government are considering raising the therapeutic allowance and that they are considering the introduction of a tapering arrangement. Therefore, I do not understand why he cannot accept the amendment. I am unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is significant that he has not been supported by one hon. Member. Not one voice, apart from his own, has been raised in favour of the case he has put forward. Therefore, we shall press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 222.

Division No. 317.]
AYES
[4.38 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Peter
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, Norman
Booth, Albert
Canavan, Dennis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cant, R. B.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cartwright, John


Bates, Alt
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara




Clemitson, Ivor
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Radice, Giles


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rooker, J. W.


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Selby, Harry


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sillars, James


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silverman, Julius


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dormand, J. D.
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Luard, Evan
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stallard, A. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David


Edge, Geoff
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stott, Roger


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ennals, David
Magee, Bryan
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon Simon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mallalieu J. P. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marquand David
Tomlinson, John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


George, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Ward, Michael


Gilbert, Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Watkins, David


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Watkinson, John


Gould, Bryan
Moonman, Eric
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Graham, Ted
Moyle, Roland
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, James (Pollok)


Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens Stanley
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orme Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hooley, Frank
Padley, Walter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur
Woodall, Alec


Howell, Dennis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton E)


Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie



Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. John Ellis and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest
Mr. James Hamilton.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Phipps, Dr Colin





NOES


Adley, Robert
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, John
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Blaker, Peter
Brittan, Leon


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Body, Richard
Brotherton, Michael


Banks, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Bell, Ronald
Bottomley, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick







Buck, Antony
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Carson, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Channon, Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cockcroft, John
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cope, John
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corrie, John
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dean, Paul (N. Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dykes, Hugh
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mates, Michael
Spence, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills peter
Stokes, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gorst, John
Mitchell David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thomas, Rt Hon p. (Hendon S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Havers, Sir Michael
Nott, John
Wall, Patrick


Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Warren, Kenneth


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)
Weatherill, Bernard


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon P. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Holland, Philip
Paisley, Rev Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Penhaligon, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hurd, Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. W. Benyon.



Raison, Timothy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 22

MOBILITY ALLOWANCE

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 14, line 3, at end insert
being such an appliance as is primarily designed to afford a means of personal and independent locomotion out of doors.

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I take it that the amendment will be entirely non-controversial and I shall, therefore, be brief. It concerns Section 37A(5)(b), which was introduced into the Social Security Act 1975 by Clause 22.


It enables regulations to be made prescribing cases in which the mobility allowance is not to be payable, or is to be payable at a reduced rate, while the person has the use:
of any prescribed description of appliance supplied under enactments relating to the National Health Service".
The Government had given assurances that there was no intention of using this power at present and that it was required only as a reserve power in case an expensive outdoor mobility appliance became available for use in the future. The Government had in mind the possible future issue of a suitable occupant-controlled electrically-propelled outdoor vehicle. Fears were expressed that the power was so wide that virtually any appliance such as a walking frame, crutches or even a Possum typewriter would be covered and that a future Government would have to reduce the mobility allowance for any of those items.
An amendment tabled on Report in another place was accepted by the Government to make clear that the reduction of the mobility allowance can be applied only if the appliance concerned is designed primarily for use out of doors and is an aid to personal and independent locomotion. That is accepted by the Government, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

POWER TO MODIFY PROVISIONS ABOUT GRADUATED RETIREMENT BENEFIT

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 10, leave out
Schedule 26 to the Social Security Act 1973 or

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 39, 41, 62, 63, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72 and 73. I draw attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Amendment No. 71.

Mr. O'Malley: The amendments are all technical amendments to put right omissions and correct references in the Bill.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: We have no objection to all the amendments being taken together. It appears that the Minister is on fairly good ground in saying that they are all technical amendments for clarification.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28

REVIEW AND ALTERATION OF CONTRACTED-OUT RATES OF CLASS 1 CONTRIBUTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 18, line 44, leave out "fourth" and insert "third".

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Mr. O'Malley: The amendments were introduced to fulfil an undertaking given by the Government on Report in this House to afford at least 12 months' notice of any changes in the contribution percentages. In practice it is envisaged that there will be about 18 months' notice, and the first report will be made as soon as may be after the third anniversary of the clause's coming into effect instead of after the fourth anniversary, to allow for the longer period of notice.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 31

CONTRACTING-OUT CERTIFICATES

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 21, line 35, leave out "for negotiating purposes" and insert:
to any extent for the purpose of collective bargaining".

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely technical amendment which the Government have introduced to bring the wording of the clause into line with the Employment Protection Bill as it has been amended.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33

REQUISITE BENEFIT FOR EARNER

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 24, line 9, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) Equivalent pension benefits for the purposes of the former legislation are not to be regarded as constituting any part of the earner's guaranteed minimum pension.
(6) The benefits referred to in subsection (5) above are any to which the earner may be immediately or prospectively entitled in respect of a period of employment which—

(a) was for him non-participating employment under that legislation; and
(b) was not on its termination the subject of any payment in lieu of contributions;

but subsection (5) excludes so much only of those benefits as (and no more than) had to be provided in order that the employment should for that period be treated as non-participating.
(7) In this section "the former legislation" means Part III of the National Insurance Act 1965 and the previous corresponding enactments.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Mr. O'Malley: The Government introduced these technical amendments in another place to make clear that equivalent pension benefits constituted only the minimum benefits which had to be provided for contracting out under the National Insurance Act 1965.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34

ANNUAL RATE OF EARNER'S PENSION

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 24, line 30, at end insert:
(3A) The earner's pension need not be in accordance with subsection (2) above in case of his service in the relevant employment being terminated before he attains the scheme's normal pension age and when—

(a) he has completed in that employment less than five years' qualifying service for the purposes of Schedule 16 to the Social Security Act 1973 (preservation); or
(b) he is under the age of 26 on termination of that employment"

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a clarifying amendment introduced to make clear that, apart from the guaranteed minimum pension, a pension under the Bill needs to be preserved only if there is an entitlement to short service benefits under the preservation requirements of the 1973 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35

EARNER'S GUARANTEED MINIMUM

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 27, line 9, at end insert:
In this subsection "week" means any period of seven consecutive days.

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendment No. 65.

Mr. Meacher: The amendments were introduced to define "week" in Clause 35(6) as any period of seven consecutive days and to make clear that it is not covered by the definition of "week" in Schedule 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. The purpose is purely beneficial, to ensure that in whatever period of the week a person retires he will be able immediately to receive increments. I hope that it will be acceptable.

Mr. McCrindle: Of course we must agree with the Lords in the amendment, and I go along entirely with what the Minister said. In any other assembly than the House of Commons to say that a week means any period of seven consecutive days would presumably be unnecessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 27, line 25, at end insert—
 or
(c) such fixed compound rate for each relevant year after that year as may be in force at the time when contracted-out service is terminated and which is, in the opinion of the Government actuary,—

(i) equal in value to an increase of 5 per cent. plus the further increase secured by the premium calculated in accordance with section 43; and


(ii) consistent with other assumptions made as to increases in earnings."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following proposed amendments to the Bill in lieu of the said amendment: in Clause 44, page 36, line 26, after "unless", insert "either—(a)".
In page 36, line 28, after "above", insert
 or (b) those provisions conform with such additional requirements as may be prescribed".
both standing in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean).

Mr. Dean: Perhaps I may briefly explain what these amendments mean, because our procedure for dealing with Lords amendments is somewhat mysterious in this House let alone outside it. I hope, in fact, that the Government will accept Lords amendment No. 13, which is my first choice, but if they do not I hope that they will accept my amendments, which I regard as second best. I put my amendments down, having read the debate in another place and the Government's response to it, as a fall-back position because, as this is the last stage of the Bill when amendments can be considered, I did not want to risk both losing Lords amendment No. 13 and having nothing on the Order Paper to fall back on in its place.
I again declare my interest in pensions. This is not an occasion for a long speech or for going over all the detailed arguments which have been deployed so often on the question of early leavers. It is an occasion more to remind the House of the background to the amendments and why I think they are of great importance.
The Bill has a fairly long pedigree, and one of its encouraging features is that there has been broad agreement in Parliament about it. The Opposition recognised in the very early days the need to try to get some political stability into pensions, and the Government, to their credit, responded to that view and have done their utmost not only to listen carefully to what has been said by the interests outside but also to try to respond to amendments put forward by the Opposition.

There has been give and take; there has been compromise, and I believe that, as a result, we are going to get a great prize for pensioners—some political stability at long last in pension planning. So it would be a pity if at the very end we were in disagreement on this important matter.
The Bill, as the Government have said all along, is based on partnership between the State scheme and the occupational—between the State and the private sector, or, to put it another way, between the "pay as you go" arrangement, with all the dangers involved in that, with a blank cheque written for the future, and the funded occupational pension schemes. I believe that this partnership can work, but there are some important provisos. Some important things are threatening to undermine the partnership and make the Bill null and void.
The first and most obvious of these factors is the ugly spectre of inflation. With inflation running at its present rate, it is in logic nonsense to save because the concept of the negative return means that anybody who puts money aside today is likely to find that that money will be worth less in 12 months' time. Fortunately, human beings are not entirely logical. We are to some extent like the squirrel, who realises come the autumn that unless he gathers some nuts and puts them away for the winter he will be hungry before the spring. He does this in the knowledge that some of the nuts will be eaten by worms or he will lose the place in which he has put them. Human beings are the same. We still put money on one side despite logical considerations which may appear to be against it.
One of the best and most secure ways in which to put money on one side is in occupational pension schemes. But we have to realise the fears of inflation are spilling over into this Bill, although the Bill of itself clearly cannot provide the cure for inflation.
Another factor, unhappily, which has been working against the success of this partnership is the pay limits which the Government have recently imposed and the way in which they have to some extent included improvements in pension arrangements within them. I regret that the Government were not able fully to meet the plea put forward by a number of


us that pension rights should be completely excluded from the pay limits, as they were in all previous pay policies. However, we have at least got an arrangement which is better than nothing. But I fear that there is another element of uncertainty now and the danger of loss of momentum.
It is such factors which largely explain the growing unease of employers and the pensions industry about the Bill and the contribution that funded occupational pension schemes can make under it. This unease was well expressed in a letter to the Financial Times a few days ago. It was written by the Chairmen of the National Association of Consulting Actuaries, the National Assocation of Pension Funds and the CIB Society of Pension Consultants. It referred to the early hopes which existed for an agreed and, therefore, enduring pension scheme, and went on:
Regrettably, these hopes have suffered serious setbacks in the discussions which have taken place on amendments suggested by the pensions industry, although we recognise that some of the proposed amendments have been, at least in part, accepted by the Government. Of course the acceleration in recent months of an already alarming rate of inflation has had much to do with the erosion of confidence. But this makes all the more important modification of features of the scheme which must constitute a major disincentive to employers to contract out.
I understand that the other pensions organisations feel very much the same as the three signatories of that letter.
But, of course, the biggest single worry is the obligation for early leavers. We all recognise that there must be a potential clash between what an employer does for the leavers and for the stayers. This is one of the inevitable factors. We have to take into account that the normal human reaction on the part of an employer will be to do more for those who stay with him than for those who leave. We also have to take into account the preservation requirements of the 1973 Act which have recently put additional obligations on employers.
That is the background to what is a very technical matter, and I fully concede that very few people will understand what it is really about. I also concede to the right hon. Gentleman that I think that the pensions industry—quite understandably, however—does tend perhaps to over-emphasise

the extent to which employers will be influenced by highly technical arguments when deciding whether to contract out or what to do about their schemes. They will be influenced very largely by broad considerations and only secondarily by technical matters. I do not wish to over-emphasise the amendment as a technical point, but I wish to return to the most important aspect of the broad context against which this matter should be considered.
I turn to the details of the arrangements. I have never liked the concept of a premium, although I recognise that the concept first arose because the Government—and I give them credit for it—responded to the criticisms made of the arrangements which appeared in the first White Paper. I know that the Minister of State is fond of saying, and will probably say again, that the idea of a premium was conceived by the pensions industry. But it is true to say that there are few friends of the premium left in the industry today, and, indeed, most people would deny paternity for the proposal. We are dealing here essentially with an open-ended commitment which still to some extent exists, despite the modifications which have been made. That is the kernel of the argument against the premium and for the amendment which was successfully moved in the other place by Lord Byers.
Apart from the open-ended commitment of the matter, I should like briefly to rehearse the arguments against the premium. Again I can do no better than to quote from the letter from the three chairmen of the main pensions organisations. The argument which they used against the premium was as follows:
It partially defeats the object of contracting out by channelling money back into the State scheme, where it will be spent, instead of allowing it to remain in the occupational pension fund, where it becomes a productive investment; and it creates a psychological disincentive to contracting out at all by requiring an employer, whenever employees have left his service, to make payments to the State out of the fund, and that just at a time when his business may be contracting and his financial position difficult.
That summarises the arguments.
Amendment No. 13 tries to meet these criticisms. It does away with the premium and also takes into account the objections put forward by the Government to a straight 8 per cent. per annum


without a premium. Therefore, I hope that, having reflected on the arguments used, the Minister will accept Lords amendment No. 13. However, if that is not the case, I hope that the Government will agree to accept my proposed amendment which provides for power to deal with the problem by regulation.
We are always careful when we seek to give Governments regulation-making powers. We have all argued against them on many occasions, but in this case the argument for such powers is very powerful. It can provide flexibility to deal with detained points which are better dealt with by regulation than as part of the main Bill. Secondly, it can provide time to enable the dialogue to continue so that the search for an acceptable solution to the problem can go on. That is the main reason behind my proposed amendment.
My amendment asks the Government for action. It is no good having regulation-making powers which lie on the statute book unused. It provides an opportunity for continuing discussion and negotiation in seeking a solution to the problem. I do not ask the Minister of State tonight to prejudge the outcome of any discussions that may take place if he feels able to accept the amendment, but I would ask him for an assurance that he will discuss the matter with the CBI, the TUC and the pensions industry to see how the regulation-making power can best be used. I hope that he will make a genuine effort to obtain an agreed solution through the regulation-making power provided by the amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. McCrindle: I begin on a somewhat flippant note by hoping that the "nuts" of the pensions industry were listening carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) about squirrels gathering nuts for the future. However, that is the only piece of levity I shall permit myself, because we are dealing with an important and serious matter.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, ideally, the Government would accept the Lord's amendment. However, if we are to be told, as I suspect, that such a course is not possible for the Government, we shall move into a fall-back position. In our proposals we are animated by a genuine desire for some give and take between

the State scheme and the private pensions industry. That probably means that we must be prepared to accept compromise solutions. It means that on both sides we must do our best to restore and maintain the stability of the pensions industry—an industry which has been under attack in recent months largely because of the sheer uncertainty of the prevailing situation.
Partnership between the Government and the pensions industry cannot be overemphasised. All the time spent on this Bill in both Houses will have been wasted if the basic aim of the legislation—namely, to take pension provision out of the political arena and to emphasise the need for partnership—is lost. There is a genuine fear among employers and in the pensions industry as they view the difficulties which have been developing in the past few months in regard to inflation.
It is significant that as we come to the end of this long parliamentary examination of the Bill, the point that continues to exercise our minds is what has been called the open-ended liability. A major purpose of the Bill is to encourage the development of good occupational pension schemes in partnership with the Government. That means encouraging employers to contract out of the State scheme, with all the responsibility which that entails for the employers. The task has been made no easier during the passage of this measure through Parliament by repeated reports that large amounts of money have had to be transferred by employers to their pension schemes to keep them afloat in this excessively inflationary period. Let us imagine the feelings of the good employer who wants a scheme to cover his employees but is becoming more and more alarmed that he is taking on an unknown commitment—in other words, that he is entering a dark tunnel with not the slightest indication of what lies ahead.
To try to assuage the fears to which I have made reference, the Opposition have pressed upon the Government, during the passage of the Bill, that they must limit the liability and, as far as possible, make clear to an employer the very worst that could happen if he embarked upon an occupational scheme. It would be churlish for me not to concede that the Government have certainly appreciated that point during the parliamentary progress of the Bill and have


made several changes from the original Bill to try to specify the commitment. No one underrates the difficulties of being exact or of finding exactly the right formula which takes account, on the one hand, of the loss to the State of contracted-out contributions—a point to which the Government must pay attention—against, on the other hand, the need, in certain circumstances, for the State to bolster-up a private pensions entitlement in the interests of the contributor.
It was against that background that Lords amendment No. 13 was carried. One of the difficulties facing employers and the pensions industry has been to try to establish what liability arises if a member leaves the scheme before retirement date, remembering the highly inflationary times in which we live. The amendment seeks to provide a third option, to those already written into the Bill, in the case of early leavers. In so doing it has sought to make the position of the scheme even more watertight, and the maximum liability in the circumstances I have described even more specific. Yet, in saying that perhaps I can now begin to question whether that is not in itself the undoing of the amendment.
I hope that Lord Byers, who has been so prominent in trying to improve the scheme, will not take it amiss if I ask aloud whether what the amendment does is not to be more specific but perhaps in a way to be too specific.
Many of the fears expressed in this matter relate to the impact of inflation. If it were to be controlled, as all hon. Members must hope that it will, many of the fears to which I and other hon. Members have spoken today would begin to fall away. Remembering that the Bill will be the basis of pension arrangements for many years to come, it would perhaps be unwise to be too inflexible, and to some degree I believe that that is what might be said of Lords amendment No. 13.
Under the present provisions of the Bill when an employee leaves having qualified for a reserve pension, the employer has the choice of revaluing the pension either in full or at a fixed 5 per cent. per annum and, in addition, paying a premium to the State. Lords amendment No. 13 would allow the employer to pay no premium and to revalue the pension at

the fixed rate assumed for the purpose of calculating the premium that he would have had to pay if he had chosen the second existing alternative.
I apologise to the House for what may seem to many a rather obscure quotation, but, unfortunately, as we move forward in social security matters it becomes increasingly difficult to simplify the position.
At this stage it would perhaps be wrong to suggest that the additional option that Lords amendment No. 13 would provide is likely to affect materially the situation whether an employer embarks upon an occupational pension scheme to any major degree. It is clear from what I deduce that the Government are unhappy about accepting it.
In those circumstances, I turn to my hon. Friend's amendment, because I believe that both the Lords amendment and the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North represent an understanding of the difficulty, the need for reassurance and the desirability—if it can be achieved—of moving forward without too much controversy, at the end of our deliberations, between the Government and the Opposition.
My hon. Friend's amendment can be described as keeping the options open while making very clear the continuing alarm and concern which exist. It accepts that we cannot tell what the future holds, especially concerning inflation, and that if employers were to be seen—I hope that the Minister will take note of this—in the comparatively early stages of the working of the Bill to be holding back for fear of commitments, the Government would have to take specific and, it is hoped, perhaps less complicated action than is at present recommended in the Lords amendment.
Therefore, perhaps it is more important to obtain agreement across the Floor of the House between the Government and the pensions industry than it is to be specific and to provide a third option. I believe that in some ways my hon. Friend has had the better approach, and, provided that the Minister can tell me that the Government will provide specific proposals if it became evident that they were necessary, the House would be wise


to support my hon. Friend and keep its options open.
I should like to refer to two quotations. The first is a letter which I received from the Life Offices Association, which, as hon. Members will know, is among the leading interests in the pensions industry. When referring to the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend it says:
I should like you to know that the Life Offices Association support fully the amendment, in the hope that it will lead to a genuine attempt by all concerned to find an acceptable solution to a problem which, if unresolved, will militate against contracting-out when the State scheme is introduced in 1977 or 1978.
In other words, the Life Offices Association, which is one of the principal providers of pensions, is saying, in effect, that my hon. Friend's approach, accompanied, one hopes, by an undertaking from the Minister that a continuing understanding of the problem is present in the Department, would perhaps be the best one.
I refer to the letter which my hon. Friend quoted on two occasions during his speech. The letter is from three leading people in the pensions industry. In the last paragraph, referring to Lords amendment No. 13, they say:
It is therefore our most earnest hope that something on the lines of the amendment agreed to in the Lords on Wednesday will be retained in the Bill when it returns to the Commons today.
I believe that my hon. Friend is giving the House and the Government an opportunity to introduce something on the lines of the amendment by Lord Byers. To that extent I commend my hon. Friend's approach, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept his amendment.

Mr. O'Malley: This is, perhaps, almost the last debate on a substantial point which we shall have during the proceedings in this House, or, indeed, in Parliament, on the Bill.
We are dealing with a matter of some concern and worry to the pensions industry. I hope that the House will accept what I have to say on both the amendment from the noble Lords and the counter-amendment, or the alternative proposition, which the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has explained. I believe that the House understands that throughout the whole of the proceedings on the Bill there has been a

willingness, certainly on the part of the Government and I should like also to say certainly on the part of the Opposition in this House, to bring to an end 15 years of disagreement about pension provision. We have tried jointly and collectively in the House to achieve a legislative structure in which we can have a viable and thriving partnership between occupational pension provision, on the one hand—whether in the public sector or in the private sector—and the national insurance scheme arrangements, on the other hand.
5.30 p.m.
The House will recognise that the Government have already moved substantially on the question of preservation. It should be pointed out that when the White Paper was published it was proposed that the whole of pre-award dynamism in respect of early leavers was and should be the responsibility of the employer in occupational pension schemes. Proposals were made to the Government from a number of major and important sectors of the pension industry. As the hon. Member for Somerset, North said, one important sector of the industry suggested that as an alternative to the proposals put forward in the White Paper we should place a limited obligation upon employers and upon the fund and that the remainder of any obligation should immediately be bought out by the payment of a premium at the time when the employee left his employer after working for him for a period of more than five years.
The Government had hoped at that time that, whatever other discussions and divisions there might be on the Bill, agreement had been reached on the situation of the early leaver. One thing that we were determined to achieve and determined to maintain whatever changes were made in the structure of the Bill, was that when men and women change their employment, rather than having one employment during the whole of a 40–year working life, they should not lose inflation proofing as a result of this change, because he is an exceptional man and she is an exceptional woman who stays in one employment in the kind of industrial and economic background that we have for the whole of his or her working life.
Nevertheless, it was the case that other sections of the pension industry objected


from the outset to any idea of a premium. The representative organisation which came forward with the concept of the premium has now changed its mind and said that it would prefer an alternative arrangement. I do not condemn the organisation for that. It is not uncommon in the conduct of human affairs for individuals or groups of individuals to change their minds.
I regard this not as an issue of principle but as a technical issue which we should do our best to solve. Even after the publication of the Bill with the premium system, I introduced a number of substantial easements which I thought would reassure the pension industry on the problem of the open-ended commitment. I need not recount to the House what those attempts were to close what became known as the open-ended commitment.
I have now been pressed by the industry and in this House, as was my hon. Friend in another place, to have alternative arrangements, because it is being suggested that to leave the arrangements as they are could act as a substantial barrier, albeit a psychological rather than a financial barrier, to employers who were considering contracting out.
I have nothing to add to the comments which were made in another place when the amendment of Lord Byers was resisted. I would merely say briefly that that amendment was at that time unacceptable to the Government and remains unacceptable, for a number of reasons, including complexity, uncertainty for all those concerned, and potential cost on the national insurance fund.
Therefore, I certainly support the motion—I recognise the technical problems in which the hon. Member for Somerset, North would have been involved in tabling his amendment—which asks the House to disagree with the amendment which has been brought from another place.
Having said that, I must go on to say that I am still not convinced that it is necessary to put any substantive provisions in the place of that amendment. However, I recognise that there are still some genuine apprehensions in the pension movement about the effect of the

early leaver provisions and the volume of contracting out. I am prepared, as I have been requested to do this afternoon by the hon. Members for Somerset, North and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), to go on talking about those apprehensions with the pension industry. Indeed, the House will wish to know that only on Wednesday of last week I met the representatives of a number of organisations in the pension industry.
Very difficult technical problems are involved. I have said that I do not think that there is a matter of principle involved, but if we are to have other options—other alternatives—rather than the 5 per cent. plus the premium, or the employer taking on the whole of the pre-award dynamism in respect of the early leavers, first, under any such option the individual himself or herself must not be adversely affected and, secondly, we must pay regard to administrative complexity.
However, I am prepared, if it is the wish of the pension industry, to add some complexity to the Bill, because any other option would cause more complexity, if we can reach an agreed solution on this part of the structure of the Bill.
The third factor must clearly be that any other options must not involve the national insurance fund in any additional burdens.
Therefore, I am prepared to accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset, North, but I make it clear to him and to the House that I am not at this time entering into a commitment of any kind. I can give no positive undertaking that the Government will use the power in any particular way or, indeed, at all. If the Government were to use this power, our aim would be to be fair as between those contracted out and those contracted in and to avoid adding to the burdens of the national insurance fund.
We are seeking partnership. That is why I am prepared to continue the consultations with the pension industry. Provided that it is clearly understood that I am making absolutely no commitment of any kind other than to the willingness of the Government to continue to consider this technical problem with the pension industry, I am prepared to continue with


the dialogue and to accept the amendments which have been moved by the hon. Member for Somerset, North.
I hope that that will be helpful to the House, but, more than that, I hope that it will mean that having over the months disposed of issue after issue which divided the pension industry and the Government on the structure which we were putting forward we shall be able in the future to resolve this problem so that we can have the best auguries for a successful start to the proposals and the structures laid down in the Social Security Pensions Bill 1975.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he says and for recommending the House to accept the amendment. I fully understand that he cannot make any absolute commitment, but I am sure that the whole House will cheer him on in the continued discussions and negotiations that he is to have in order to try to reach an agreed solution to this difficult matter and one which will provide an additional measure of confidence to those who have to make decisions about the future of pension schemes and to those who advise them.
This has been a good example of a parliamentary process of which we in the House and, indeed, in Parliament can be proud. The Government have shown themselves ready to consult and to meet points when the need for these points has been established. Equally, we have done our utmost to assist the Government in improving the Bill. Equal credit is due to those outside who have advised the Government and the Opposition in trying to reach this solution.
We now have, one hopes, political stability in pensions for the first time for many years. Our need is to be able to put our economic and financial house in order, so that this Bill can really mean something in practice. But, having done that, I think we can fairly say to those outside that the ball is now in their court to carry this legislation forward and to see that what we have tried to achieve in this place becomes a success in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof.

In page 36, line 26, after 'unless', insert:

'either—
(a)'.

In page 36, line 28, after 'above', insert:
'or
(b) those provisions conform with such additional requirements as may be prescribed'—[Mr. Paul Dean.]

Clause 36

REQUISITE BENEFIT FOR WIDOW

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 27, line 41, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 5 on page 28 and insert—
(1A) Subject to subsections (1C) and (1D) below, the scheme must conain rules whereby the annual rate of the pension will be not less than the requisite minimum under this section, which is 5/8ths per cent. of either—

(a) the earner's average annual salary in the whole period of his service in contracted-out employment by reference to the scheme; or
(b) his final salary (or last salary before death),

multiplied by the number of his years of such service; and section (Earner's salary as factor of widow's pension) below applies as to the relationship which the widow's pension must bear to the earner's salary.
(1B) To comply with this section the scheme must also contain a rule to the effect that if the earner had a guaranteed minimum under section 35 above the weekly rate of the widow's pension will be not less than her guaranteed minimum, which shall be half that of the earner.
(1C) Where it is a condition of the scheme that the earner shall complete a specified minimum period of service before qualifying for requisite benefits in excess of guaranteed minimum pensions the scheme need not contain the rules specified in subsection (1A) above for the case of the earner's service being terminated (by death or otherwise) before completion of that minimum period.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

Mr. O'Malley: These Government amendments were introduced as a result of a further consideration of the provision for widows which was promised during the Committee stage in another place. The effect of the amendments is that in order to qualify for contracting out, an occupational pension scheme has to provide a widow's pension based on an


annual accrual rate of five-eighths per cent., for each year of the late husband's contracted-out service of his final salary or average salary revalued.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 39

FINANCING AND ASSURANCE OF BENEFITS

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 31, line 20, leave out from beginning to "does" and insert:
under the scheme in respect of benefits attributable to any period of service after the rule has taken effect.
This

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government introduced this amendment in response to representations made by Lord Banks, who referred to difficulties that occupational pension schemes might have in modifying scheme rules to comply with the priority rule in Clause 39(3). The effect of the amendment is that the items listed in Clause 39(3) will take priority only in relation to benefits arising after the priority rule comes into force.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41

PREMIUM ON TERMINATION OF CONTRACTED-OUT EMPLOYMENT

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 33, line 26, leave out "which" and insert:
in respect of which the scheme

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42

PREMIUM UNDER SECTION 41: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 34, line 22, leave out "length of" and insert "lengths of relevant".

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendment No. 25.

Mr. O'Malley: These Government amendments were introduced to make it clear that for the purposes of the requirement for an employer not to discriminate between different earnings on any grounds other than length of service in relation to electing for a contracting-out certificate, "certificates" means contracting-out certificates.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 43

PREMIUM ON TERMINATION OF CONTRACTED-OUT SCHEME

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 35, line 7, leave out from "otherwise)" to end of line 16 and insert "then—


(a) in respect of each earner whose accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions under the scheme are not subject to approved arrangements; and
(b) in respect of each person who has then become entitled to receive a guaranteed minimum pension under the scheme and whose guaranteed minimum pension rights are not so subject,

a state scheme premium shall be payable by the prescribed person."

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.

Mr. Meacher: These are partly drafting amendments but also, in the case of Lords amendment No. 26, they add some administrative flexibility by providing that both the accrued rights premiums and pensioners' rights premiums are to be paid by the prescribed person. The purpose is to provide greater flexibility, in that they can be paid not only by the employer but also by the scheme manager or the scheme trustees.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to

Clause 51

EQUAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 43, line 4, leave out from beginning to "are" in line 11 and insert—
(1) The provisions of sections 54 to 56 below shall have effect with a view to securing that the rules of occupational pension schemes conform with the equal access requirements.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the equal access requirements, in relation to a scheme".

5.45 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.

Mr. O'Malley: These are technical amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 64

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 53, line 1, after "in" insert "Part I of".

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 66.

Mr. Meacher: These are again technical amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

DEFERRED RETIREMENT

Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 57, line 6, leave out from "age" to second "the" in line 7.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendment Nos. 47 to 54.

Mr. O'Malley: These are not quite technical amendments, but they are almost technical amendments. The amendments remove unintended consequences of the original provision relating to increments in the Bill. They ensure that a de minimis rule operates in respect of increments, so that payments under increments are limited to pensions of at least 1 per cent. A person should have worked for a period of eight weeks on the one-eighth per cent. rule which we discussed in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 71, line 33, leave out paragraph 50.

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Lords amendment requires the Secretary of State, in each tax year, commencing with the tax year 1976–77, to consider whether the mobility allowance should be increased, having regard to the national economic situation, the general standard of living and any other matters he thinks relevant. Two Government amendments have been tabled in response to an amendment which was successfully moved against the Government in another place during the Report stage of the Bill.
The Lords amendment was one which seemed to be seen by its supporters primarily as a guarantee of annual reviews, but which would in fact have required annual upratings in line with earnings. Indeed, it is our purpose to ensure that the final legislation takes full account of what we believe was in the minds of their Lordships when they moved this amendment, though there may in fact be some dubiety. The purpose of this amendment is to remove that. If the relevant paragraph is left out, according to the amendment in another place, it omits the exemption of mobility allowances from automatic annual review and upratings. We are therefore concerned obviously to include the exemption which we believe was the original intention, at least as regards automatic uprating, but what we are seeking to do is to replace what we believe was the gist of the


debate in another place by committing ourselves to a regular review, but not necessarily to an annual uprating.
The effect, therefore, of the two Government amendments together is to require an annual review of mobility allowance but to leave the decision on any uprating to be taken in the light of national economic circumstances at the time. This corresponds precisely to the position under the provisions which relate to child benefit. Clearly it would be very desirable if all benefits which were introduced by the Government irrespective of the kind of benefit were to be subject to an automatic uprating. No doubt in a world which was free of major expenditure constraints, that would be an ideal solution. But when there are very tight expenditure restrictions, it is not possible that this should apply to all benefits automatically. The Government have no alternative but to make it clear that we must remain free to decide whether it is possible at any time to commit scarce additional resources to this important extra item for the disabled.
This allowance will benefit many of the most severely disabled people who in the past have received no help with their mobility problems simply because they could not drive. The amount and the scope of the allowance are not as large and as wide as some would like. But the allowance is a major and important step forward. We are determined to ensure that it is not put on the shelf and that it does not lose any significant degree of its value over time.
Automatic upratings in line with earnings may be appropriate with regard to basic maintenance benefits, but clearly they are of a different order of importance from these benefits which will be paid on top of other benefits or on top of earnings. The simple effect of the amendment, therefore, takes account of the rather different nature of the mobility allowance from basic maintenance benefits.
In case there is any doubt about the position in respect of the Bill as it reaches this House, we seek to make it clear that we will commit ourselves to consider mobility allowance in the light of the national economic situation but that it is not possible to make the same guarantee in respect of this benefit as

regards other maintenance benefits. I hope that that is broadly acceptable.

Mr. Norman Fowler: When the mobility allowance was first debated in this House, we pointed out the need for some kind of review procedure. That need has been made out by the very brief history of this allowance.
The allowance was announced in September 1974. At that stage it was set at £4. In June the Secretary of State announced that when it was to be introduced, which is not until the beginning of 1976, it would be put at £5. The House might expect the Government to have been apologetic about the rate of inflation which had caused this increase, but not a bit of it. The right hon. Lady told the House that the 25 per cent. increase was remarkable and was the first uprating of a benefit that had ever taken place to her knowledge before it had been introduced. In other words, rather than apologising for the horrific rise in inflation, the right hon. Lady was seeking our applause.
The right hon. Lady's script has changed, but there are still some questions which have to be asked. The House would do well to remember that this allowance, even now that it is put at £5, is unlikely when it is first paid at the beginning of next year to be worth £4 as it was announced originally. That is the price of inflation. That is what inflation has done to this allowance.
Let is also remember that the £5 a week is not by any definition a princely sum. We welcome the mobility allowance. But we also recognise its limitations.
It is recognised on both sides of the House that there is a real need for a review procedure. One way would be by means of an annual review linked to prices or to earnings. The Minister has rejected that. The implication of the Lords amendment is that the other place supported that. The other way is that now proposed by the Government in their amendment. We welcome the fact that the Government have at least—again after a defeat in the Lords—moved some way on this point. But there are two vital questions which will have to be answered by the Minister before we can accept this compromise.
The amendment proposed by the Government is that the Secretary of State shall consider whether the rate of mobility allowance should be increased having regard to the national economic situation as a whole, the general standard of living, and such other matters as he thinks relevant. Is not that what the Government would do in any event? Would not any Secretary of State worth his salt do just that? Therefore, I ask the Minister how this amendment alters the real position.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Why did not the hon. Gentleman and his Government look at this between 1970 and 1973?

Mr. Fowler: I am glad that we have at last had the first back-bench intervention from a Government supporter—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It was a good one.

Mr. Fowler: It was quite a good one. However, the Secretary of State, whom we are pleased to see in her place, must come to the conclusion that it is her legislation that we are debating. If she wishes to debate what happened between 1970 and 1974, doubtless that can be arranged. But we are not discussing that at the moment.
I repeat my question. How has the Government's amendment altered the position as it affects the Government? I ask the question to elicit information. I do not intend to try to establish the fact that concern about these matters is the monopoly of one side of the House or the other.
The second question concerns the criteria which the Secretary of State will use. The amendment refers to taking into account the general standard of living. Does that mean that there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider prices and the level of prices and earnings and the level of earnings over the 12–month period after which she will review this benefit? I think that that is the case, but I should like the Under-Secretary's confirmation that it is. We want to be sure that this amendment is not just a matter of words but that it actually means something real and right to the people we are all seeking to help.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have pointed out that privilege is involved in this amendment.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has tabled this amendment to save me embarrassment. Had the amendment not appeared on the Notice Paper, I fear that I might have had to vote against the Government on this one.
I like the idea of an annual review. However, this amendment is a nice one in the sense that the Secretary of State has not adopted a low profile. She is a duck in a position where she can be shot at in the future. We now have an amendment which gives my right hon. Friend a fair amount of power to intervene. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity from time to time to fire at her if we feel that the allowance is not as great as it should be. It is not unknown for me to vote against the Government on such issues. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's review. I hope that she will consider the matter carefully.
In view of the amendment, which I support wholeheartedly, I am at long last in a position to tell my Government "I am on your side on this."

6.0 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I support the Lords amendment, rather than the Government amendments, because the Lords are saying that there should be an annual review, and the Government do not say that. With the Lords amendment, we know what would happen.
Their Lordships felt that there was a strong case for an annual review, as petrol has just about doubled in price in the past year. I do not altogether blame the Government for that, although they must bear some of the blame, because of the increased tax. Moreover, rail fares have increased by 50 per cent. in the past 18 months, and may very well go up again before long.
In those circumstances the Lords were saying clearly that they were not merely paying lip service to the aim of encouraging mobility among severely disabled people, but that those facts must be taken into consideration. How can the disabled


be mobile in the face of sharply increasing costs if we do not permit an annual review?
I do not understand what the result of the Government amendments will be, but I understand what the Lords amendment will do. It is much clearer and fairer, and, therefore, I support it.

Mr. Boscawen: I support the annual review, not necessarily because of the level of benefit but because it gives the House an opportunity to consider the structure of the new benefit. We want to examine the structure, including the age limits, frequently. For example, the age limit of 65 is an important and disliked limit on the allowance. If the Government amendments meant longer intervals between examinations of the structure of the new allowance, I should strongly deprecate that. When it has been working for a year we want to have a jolly good look at it.

Mr. Newton: I support the Lords amendment, though I prefer the amendment which was not pressed at the Committee stage in another place to the one which the Government are resisting now. I do not know whether this is what you meant by privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that their Lordships got it wrong in not pressing what they asked for earlier, rather than pressing the amendment that we are discussing. At an earlier stage their Lordships wanted the allowance to be specifically related annually to the rise in travel and motoring costs, rather than being on the same basis as pensions, which are related to earnings. That makes a great deal of sense.
For reasons that I have explained in Finance Bill debates, I am generally in favour of the indexing of such allowances. In considering the mobility allowance we are dealing with a group of people who no hon. Member would wish to suffer cuts in their standard of living, even at a difficult time. We all agree that we are talking about a priority group, and we want to protect them from the ravages of inflation, even if we cannot protect everyone.
We are also dealing with a sector of inflationary costs, travel costs, which, partly because they arise in industries which are so labour-intensive, have been

rising even faster than the general rise in prices, and may continue to do so over the next few years. That is especially true of motoring costs, in view of possible oil price increases. Therefore, it would be right to index the allowance to travel costs rather than anything else, certainly rather than the almost meaningless formula for which the Government try to obtain credit.
It is also important—and this is why I shall not vote against the Government's amendments—that the allowance should be reviewed fairly soon. It has been made taxable, something against which I have argued strongly in Finance Bill debates. I suspect that for that reason it is not worth as much in travel terms to some people who receive the old private car allowance as that allowance was when it was introduced, and that, therefore, we are debating a proposal which reduces the amount of mobility available to some disabled people who happen to be paying tax. Figures from the Disablement Income Group suggest that some disabled people changing from the old private car allowance will be worse off. Treasury Ministers have been unable to quarrel with me about that. It is another good reason for examining the allowance annually.
I acknowledge the step that the Government have taken, but I wish that they had gone further. The Secretary of State is to consider the matter every year. May we have an undertaking that the result of that consideration will be explicitly set out at the time of the annual review when the announcement is made at Budget time? It is not good enough for it to be swallowed up in Whitehall somewhere, so than when questions are asked later Ministers can just say "We considered this, but we decided to do nothing about it". We want a formal paragraph in the statement of annual review saying that the matter has been considered and that all the factors have been taken into account, and stating the conclusion, so that Parliament has a proper opportunity to discuss it. If we may have that undertaking, we shall be much happier with the formula than we are now.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I very much agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), because the disabled face


an extra increase above the normal motoring costs that the rest of us who are able-bodied face. I would have preferred the annual review.
During the past few months, because of the debates here and in another place, many misunderstandings have arisen about the effect and meaning of the mobility allowance. We are talking about a periodic review, not an annual review as with other benefits, but a review which it should be within the province of any Secretary of State to make of all allowances. Will the Government undertake this evening to publish a clear and unequivocal statement about the exact effects of the mobility allowance when it comes in, and will they take up the points made by my hon. Friend? Many people are asking "Can we go on working past the age of 65, because we may lose our vehicle or not receive the allowance?" The muddle in the minds of the disabled is very worrying and is causing a great deal of unhappiness.

Mr. Meacher: There was an innuendo in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) that what the Government proposed was nothing more than they were obliged to do anyway. I am glad to say that several of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends did not take his line, but saw great merit in our proposal. For his sake, but less for theirs, I shall spell it out.
We are committing ourselves to a review. The difference between what we propose here and what, for example, was done in the case of the family allowances under successive Conservative administrations is that then there was no review—annual or any other kind. In the case of family allowances, for example, there has been no increase by any Conservative administration since 1956. If there had been a commitment to a review, I should be surprised if no increase would have resulted. That indicates the value and importance of what is being proposed. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who has played such an important rôle in so many of these matters, also believes that this is an important innovation. I am convinced that it is.
I was also asked by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield what we would take into account when we made an examination

of the mobility allowance, and whether it was merely a matter of prices and earnings. Obviously prices and earnings are prime economic indicators, and we are bound to take account of them. However, we are also bound to take account of other economic issues at the time. I therefore cannot give the hon. Member the kind of comprehensive answer he might want, because it is left open-ended. The reason we cannot commit ourselves to a Section 125-type of uprating is that we have to take into account all the economic indicators at the time.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and her hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) referred to the fact that petrol had doubled in price. That is a somewhat irrelevant comparison, because the whole point of the mobility allowance is that it shall go to those persons who have either no mobility or scarcely any mobility. That does not necessarily mean that the allowance will not go to those who have a private car allowance, but it is not primarily for that type of person—it is for a different type of person. Therefore, the allegation that petrol has sharply increased in price and has a direct implication for the mobility allowance is somewhat misplaced.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am sorry to dig the dagger in here, but the mobility allowance was intended to give mobility to about 100,000 extra people. Last week taxi fares rose substantially in the London area. The mobility allowance was intended to include that 100,000 people. Will my hon. Friend allow us to question him on this matter in 12 months' time?

Mr. Meacher: I entirely accept the point about taxi fares. It is also true that the mobility allowance was introduced primarily to benefit many of the most severely disabled persons who, in the past, have received no help at all with their mobility problem, simply because they cannot drive. I do not wish to labour this point. I simply do not believe that its relationship to the increase in the price of petrol is very relevant.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) made a fair point when he said that our commitment to a review would give the House an opportunity to examine the structure flexibly and to


consider the position on uprating. There will be a full opportunity for all hon. Members to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the operation of the mobility allowance, its application, and how it affects people. They will have that opportunity as a result of the commitment to the review.

Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman does not agree that petrol costs have any effect on the mobility allowance, does he agree that increases in train fares have an effect?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Meacher: They have an effect for those who, despite their disablement, are able to use a train and a taxi. There are some persons whose disability is such that they are not able to use even those forms of transport. The mobility allowance is designed primarily to assist that group. However, I do not wish to pursue that point.
Many economic factors are relevant in considering the uprating. Certainly the rise in petrol costs is only one, and I should not consider it a prime one.

Mr. Newton: Will the Minister make it clear whether, so far, we have a undertaking that in the annual review statement, which is normally made around Budget time, there will be a specific reference to the question of the mobility allowance? Primarily, that is what I want to hear.

Mr. Meacher: I am not necessarily making that commitment. I am saying that we are committed to a review. However, this is known because it has been publicly stated by Government spokesmen. Therefore, it will be open for any hon. Member to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any other Minister for the results of that review.
I hope that it will be accepted that this is a significant change, and one which might be expected to lead to significantly different results as compared with that other, so often shelved benefit, family allowance. There is no reason, because of what we are committed to doing—which is different from the situation when the Bill went through the other place—to suggest that this benefit will go the way of the family allowance. I am convinced that it will not, and on those

grounds I hope that it is acceptable to all hon. Members.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I fear that the Under-Secretary is having a bad effect on me. Every time he puts forward his argument he makes me want to vote against him, and sometimes against my own better judgment and preconceived ideas. He has accused me of innuendo. All I said was that when the mobility allowance was announced in September 1974 it was set at £4. In June 1975 the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State increased it to £5, and it will be paid for the first time in January 1976. The point I am making is not innuendo; it is a fact that the allowance has to keep up with inflation. There is no big deal about that. Inflation has got out of control, and if the Under-Secretary does not know, he is the only member of the Government who does not. That is not innuendo. It is a fact that he had better come to terms with promptly.
It is a difficult choice. The annual review is clearly preferred by one or two of my hon. Friends. I am prepared to concede that the Government have taken a step—perhaps a faltering step—in the right direction. We shall want to see how this works. However, at this stage we are prepared to let it go, despite the Minister's arguments.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 13, line 29, at end insert—
'(3A) In the tax year 1976–77, and thereafter in each subsequent tax year, the Secretary of State shall consider whether the rate of mobility allowance should be increased having regard to the national economic situation as a whole, the general standard of living and such other matters as he thinks relevant'.

In page 71, line 33, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 35 and insert—'for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
(a) Parts I, IV and V of Schedule 4 to this Act and paragraphs 1 to 3, 4 and 5 of Part III; and"'.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should not like my generosity to go unnoticed. I did not require hon. Members to seek leave to speak again, because we are not in Committee.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mrs. Barbara Castle, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Norman Fowler, Mr. R. A. McCrindle and Mr. Brian O'Malley; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

CHILD BENEFIT BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 5

RATE OF CHILD BENEFIT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 29, leave out "shall" and insert "may".

6.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment we are to take the following:
Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 6.

Mr. Meacher: These three amendments, which firmly establish the Government's commitment to the principle of variation in rates of child benefit, merely put into an appropriate form the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on Report. At that time, when accepting my hon. Friend's amendments, we explained that they were technically defective and would need revision in another place. I am advised that the amendments as redrafted have the precise meaning and the same degree of force as the original amendments. I hope they will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 1.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friends and I are thoroughly confused by the action of the Government in connection with Lords amendment No. 1, and indeed its predecessors. To describe what they have done as a series of somersaults would be flattering, because to perform somersaults requires a certain amount of agility. It would be more correct to say that what they have done is, tediously and incoherently, execute a series of U turns.
The Lords amendment to which we are invited to agree relates to Clause 5(2). This deals with age-related benefits. As


the subsection was sent to this House, it read:
Different rates may be prescribed in relation to different cases, whether by reference to the age of the child in respect of whom the benefit is payable or otherwise.
Hon. Members thought that that wording did not ascribe a sufficient degree of urgency into the introduction of age-related benefits, and six amendments were discussed in Standing Committee A on 19th June. There was one vote, on an Opposition amendment, and it was defeated.
The Committee discussed Amendment No. 24 in the names of the hon. Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Walsall, South (Mr. George) which proposed that the word "may" be deleted and the word "shall" substituted. This would have reflected a higher degree of urgency to introduce age-related benefits. The hon. Member for Stockport, North said:
Will he look, therefore, at Amendment No. 24? I am advised that, in legal terms, the substitution of 'shall' for 'may' is not so important. But will he consider on Report, agreeing to the strengthening of Clause 5 to provide that different rates 'shall' be prescribed instead of that different rates 'may' be prescribed? "—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 19th June 1975, c. 106–7.]
In the winding-up speech to that debate is was never suggested that the amendment was technically defective. Normally that is a Minister's first line of defence, but it was not deployed on that occasion. Instead the Minister fell back on his second line of defence and said that if he entered into detailed discussions and consultations with his hon. Friends who had put forward such a firm view for which he had infinite respect and sympathy, perhaps they would be courteous enough to withdraw the amendment. His hon. Friends obliged. The Committee heaved. The Committee whip heaved a sigh of relief and the Committee moved on to Amendment No. 25.
Before Report, discussions and consultations clearly took place, because when the Report stage of the Bill was taken on 7th July Amendment No. 24 reappeared, this time under the alias of Lords amendment No. 6. It was called with Amendment No. 7, which gave the Secretary of State the privilege of appointing the day on which age-related benefits

were to be paid. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 proved to be acceptable to the Minister because he said:
…I am certainly prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North as a means of providing reassurance, not just to the House but to interested organisations outside, that it is not intended to continue with flat-rate benefit indefinitely.
The Minister then went on to make a rather curious statement:
The amendments as drafted are defective.
This is curious because the Minister had had discussions with his three hon. Friends between the Committee and Report stages but he had not apparently been able to furnish them with an amendment which was not defective. This strikes me as curious because so far as other Bills are concerned, when Opposition amendments have been acceptable the Minister has made sure that the amendments were not technically defective, and I am surprised that he does not render the same service to his hon. Friends as he renders to the Opposition.
The Minister went on to say:
I understand that the draftsmen will need to improve on my hon. Friend's efforts. But I am prepared to accept them this evening hoping that my hon. Friend will understand that they will need revision in another place."—[Official Report, 7th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 231.]
The House therefore amended the clause, "may" was deleted and "shall" was inserted.
The Bill then passed to the other place and we on this side of the House waited with bated breath to see how that word "shall" was to be made legitimate. But in another place the Government amendment was to delete the word "shall" and to insert the word "may"—a stroke of breathtaking ingenuity, which rendered totally redundant the amendment which the Government and the Opposition accepted on 7th July.
Moving the Government amendment. Lord Wells-Pestell said:
The amendments put into an appropriate form amendments made in another place which, although acceptable in principle to the Government, were technically defective.
However, their Lordships were not so gullible as to fall for this, and Baroness Elles said:
I feel that the amendment does not seem to be quite in the spirit of the reply given in


another place that 'shall' is to replace 'may' in the Bill…
Lord Banks agreed and Lord Wells-Pestell was under some pressure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting what was said in another place?

Sir G. Young: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has come to the end of his quotation because Ministers only may be quoted from another place.

Sir G. Young: Lord Wells-Pestell is a a Minister in another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman referred to Baroness Elles.

Sir G. Young: I apologise for inadvertently quoting someone whom I should not have quoted. I will endeavour to complete my oration without relying on my hon. Friends.
Lord Wells-Pestell, who is in the unhappy position of being a Minister, said:
I am advised that it is much more appropriate to use the word 'may' than the word 'shall'. I recognise the force of 'shall', but we are advised that' may' is the more appropriate word."—[Official Report, House of Lords, Vol. 363, c. 535–8.]
With all respect to the noble Lord, that is hardly a compelling argument. In both Houses we have been told that "shall" is technically defective but we have never been told why. The Government must do better today than merely say that "shall" is defective. If one goes through the Bill I doubt whether one finds any word appearing quite so often as the word "shall", apart possibly from the word "regulations." I accept that another amendment inserted in another place, namely Lords amendment No. 2, is relevant to our deliberations. This amendment says:

The power to prescribe different rates under subsection (2) shall be exercised as to bring different rates into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
This, however, is not good enough because the power referred to is permissive and not mandatory. We on this side of the House find ourselves in the strange position of defending an amendment which the Government accepted three weeks ago from one of their own back benchers. We are happy to have this opportunity, and we propose to resist Lords amendments Nos 1 and 2.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I assume from the comprehensiveness of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he is practising to write the definitive biography of the new leader of his party. I think, however, that we should be grateful for his putting on the record in considerable detail the history of this affair.
All I would say is that, of course, it is the case that "may" is replaced by "shall" in Lords amendment No. 1. On the other hand, the word "shall" appears clearly in Lords amendment No. 2. The total result of all the amendments which we are discussing is to provide in proper legal form everything which my hon. Friend was putting forward in his amendment. We have, therefore, given the assistance of the Government draftsman to ensuring that this Bill, when it completes its parliamentary process, should be in the correct legal language. Nothing has changed except drafting since the Bill was in another place, and I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is making such a fuss about.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 251.

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment agreed to: No. 2, in page 3, line 31, leave out from "otherwise" to the end of line 32 and insert:
(2A) The power to prescribe different rates under subsection (2) above shall be exercised so as to bring different rates into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order specify."—[Mr. Meacher.]

[Special Entry.]

New Clause A

REPAYMENT AND DISQUALIFICATION

Lords amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 27, at end insert new Clause A—
A.—(1) In any case to which section 1 of this Act applies the district auditor shall at the same time as he makes the certificate referred to in subsection (2) thereof make a further certificate stating the sum or sums which and the person or persons whom he would have surcharged under each of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 228(1) of the Local Government Act 1933 but for this Act.
(2) Within 28 days of making the certificate required under subsection (1) above the district auditor shall apply to the court for such order or orders as the court may think fit to make as hereinafter provided in respect of the said certificate and against any person or persons named in it.
(3) On an application under subsection (2) above the court may confirm, vary or quash the said certificate and, if it confirms or varies it, may—

(a) order that any person named in the said certificate as confirmed or varied shall pay to the council which incurred the expenditure or suffered the loss or deficiency in question, or to its successor council, such part as the court thinks fit but not exceeding £1,000 of the sums for the expenditure or loss or deficiency of which such person was responsible as certified therein; and
(b) subject to subsection (4) hereof whether or not it makes an order for the payment of any part of such expenditure or loss or deficiency if the total thereof exceeds £2,000 and any person responsible for authorising or incurring it is or was at the time of his so doing a member of a local authority shall order him to be disqualified for being a member or elected to a local authority for a period of five years unless there are special circumstances connected with the relevant transactions to be specified by the court which in the opinion of the court justify the remission of the whole or part of any such disqualification.

(4) The court shall not make an order under subsection (3)(a) or (b) above if the court is satisfied that the person authorising or incur ring the expenditure, loss or deficiency in question acted reasonably or in the belief that his action was authorised by law, and in any other case, before making an order under subsection (3)(a) above, shall have regard to all the circumstances, including that person's means and ability to pay and the degree to which in the opinion of the court he was guilty of wilful default.

(5) Any person in relation to whom an order may be made in proceedings under any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be entitled to appear and be heard in such proceedings.
(6) The courts having jurisdiction for the purposes of this section shall be the High Court except that, if no sum specified in the certificate given under subsection (1) above exceeds the amount over which county courts have jurisdiction in actions founded on contract, the county court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court.
(7) Any expenses incurred by a district auditor in complying with the foregoing provisions of this section shall so far as not recovered from any other source be recoverable from the local authority from the audit of whose accounts such expenses arose or from the council which is the successor to that local authority.

Read a Second time.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed Lords amendment, at end of new Clause A add:
'(8) Any person who has been surcharged in respect of an item of account or a loss or deficiency attributable to a council's failure to implement the Housing Finance Act 1972 may make an application to the court in respect of the said surcharge and the provisions of this section shall apply to the said application and to the powers and duties of the court in respect of it as if it were an application made under this section in respect of a certificate to which it applies'.
It is my privilege to move this important amendment, which raises questions going to the heart of the problem with which we are all trying to deal. I stress the words "all trying to deal" as we are attempting to find a sensible solution to this question. Its direct effect applies only to the 11 Clay Cross councillors who have already been surcharged once for the sum of £6,985. That is important. I hope to show that this amendment will put those councillors in a better position than any of the alternatives open to them under the Bill.
The amendment raises an even more important questions of principle first that everyone should be treated in the same way. That is a most important question. Secondly, although we agree that justice should be tempered with mercy none of us should tamper with the rule of law or put it at risk. All people who offend the law, as these people have offended, should be treated alike. No hon. Member would quarrel with that proposition. Indeed, everyone would pay lip service to it so let us see whether that is so with


the Bill. That involves a two-stage process—first to discover who is affected by the Bill and secondly whether those who are affected are being treated alike.
Let me first look at who is not affected by the Bill. No councillor who acted reasonably—for instance, those who applied under the Newcastle amendment and who, whilst waiting for answers, did nothing—has anything to fear from the existing law or has any need for this Bill. No one who believed that his actions were authorised by law has anything to fear from the law or has any need for the Bill. That was demonstrated clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on Second Reading, who mentioned three councils which were late in implementing the Act, but which, as they were acting reasonably, and as they believed that what they were doing was authorised by the law, were not even surcharged.

Mr. Paul Channon: What my hon. Friend says is accurate. Two of the councils to which I referred wrote to the Secretary of State to tell him that it was not their intention to implemen the Act. Even in those circumstances the district auditor did not decide to surcharge them.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Despite those facts it appears that the Government had to accept that there were people who could neither show that they had acted reasonably nor that they believed they had acted within the authority of the law. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
A number have convinced the district auditor that there were reasonable grounds for their delay: a fact which underlines what I said earlier—that authorities were in genuine difficulties over implementing the Act.
Those are some of the cases to which my hon. Friend referred. He went on:
But in the remaining cases—a score or so—the district auditor may well find that the rent losses were due to misconduct, and that it is therefore his duty to surcharge the councillors involved."—[Official Report, 24th March 1975, Vol. 889, c. 38.]
It is only those councillors who, in the words of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), said:
To hell with the law, to hell with Parliament.

Those are the only people who need the protection of this Bill. He rightly went on to say:
Under the circumstances, I do not see why Parliament should show any clemency towards these people. If it did, it would set a serious precedent for the future."—[Official Report, 24th March 1975, Vol. 889, c. 83.]
This is the answer to my first question of who is affected by the Bill and who needs the Bill. It is only the people who said "To hell with the law, to hell with Parliament" and who openly defied the law.
Now for the second part of the comparison. Are all those people being treated alike? Under Clause 4, the 11 who have been identified are let off three of their five years' disqualification. But they receive no financial relief. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said that that was wrong and that they should not be let off three of their five years' disqualification. I agree. This is not a matter where Parliament should simply let off those people.
However, the effect of Clause 1 was much worse until the new clause, which is the subject of the first amendment, was added in the other place. For the effect of Clause 1 was as follows.
An unspecified number of councillors—being about 400—and unidentified as to the councils involved, were to be relieved of all penalties, financial and otherwise. They were men and women who had taken the oath to carry out their duties according to law and spat in the face of it. They were guilty of misconduct. They could not claim that what they did was reasonable. They could not say that they believed their actions were authorised by law. Even at this late stage the House must realise that what was proposed under Clause 1 was infinitely worse than what was proposed under Clause 4, and that the people affected by the Bill were not being equally treated. These 400 unidentified, and, I suspect, important, people were treated much better than the 11 people from Clay Cross who are being let off three years' disqualification. That seems bad enough, baldly stated like that. But when we realise that Clause 1 implemented Labour Party conference resolution 191 in full, except in the case of the 11 Clay Cross councillors, we also realise how disgraceful was this exercise until the other place improved the Bill


by adding the new clause—to which my amendment would add yet a further advantage.
For a long time the Secretary of State managed to distract attention by playing on the fact that the Clay Cross affair was news. For a long time many people, including Members of Parliament, believed that Clause 4 mattered most, simply because the people to whom it referred were news. Thank goodness all of that has been exploded, first in Committee, secondly by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Hailsham, leading for the Opposition in another place, and by Lord Wigoder, leading for the Liberals in another place. Now we see two things without a shadow of doubt. First, all those who offended and are affected by the Bill are not being treated in the same way. Secondly, the real evil of the Bill lies in Clause 1 and not in Clause 4.
7.0 p.m.
I come now to the next stage of the argument. In the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State at least had the good grace to say that he did not suggest that his Bill was perfect. That is the understatement of the century. He invited us to say how we would deal with the situation. I think that he will be good enough to acknowledge that he did not have long to wait for the answer to that question.
In Committee in our first amendments we put forward a method which has received at least some commendation from the other side of the House. The Secretary of State and the Attorney-General were good enough to say that they recognised that it was an attempt to put forward a constructive alternative. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) thought that there was a good deal of sense in it and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) thought that it would be as good as a permanent improvement in the law relating to surcharges. That method was examined in detail in Committee and pursued on Report in this House. Unhappily, it was rejected out of hand. Now the other place has given us a chance to reconsider the position, thus demonstrating yet again both how fortunate we are to have a revising House and what nonsense the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) must

sometimes talks if the Daily Telegraph report is accurate.
Having added the new clause to which the amendment is moved, the other place went on to move a new clause which would have extended to the Clay Cross councillors the benefits of the clause that it had just carried. That offer was spurned by the Government and not pursued in the other place. We are pursuing it in this amendment.
My case on the amendment is immensely powerful and may be summarised thus. It offers the House a chance to do four things which we must do if we place any value the trust reposed in us as elected Members of this House. We must uphold the rule of law, temper justice with mercy, treat all those who offended in precisely the same way and take the whole matter out of party politics. We can achieve all four by passing the amendment and agreeing with the other place in the first amendment which we shall then go on to consider.
It is a two-part exercise because the new clause has to stay if the amendment is to have an effect. I hope that the House, having decided to make this amendment, will decide to keep that new clause, but that is the subject of the next debate and my hon. and hon. and learned Friends will be dealing with it in detail so I shall confine myself to this amendment.
But I must refer to some words attributed to the Secretary of State and reported in the Daily Telegraph of last Thursday, and I am sure he will tell me if they are inaccurate. He is reported as having said of the new clause and what the other place had done:
'Their object is to wreck the Bill and preferably to wreck the Labour Party as well', Mr. Crosland alleged. 'Those 400 councillors would be dragged one by one through the courts. Many would suffer heavy fines and most would be disqualified. We should be forced into a series of by-elections on grounds of our opponents' choosing, and some of the best Labour-controlled local authorities in the country would be decimated in the process. That is what their Lordships want to see.'
The Secretary of State does not deny having said that, but I remind him that we do not even know the names of the councils concerned, let alone the councillors. He and his Government will not tell us the councils, they will not tell us how many are affected and they will not tell us the names of the councillors. How


nonsensical can he get? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly suggest that we are trying to force the Government into a series of by-elections on grounds of our choosing when we do not even know the names of the councils?
Does not this perhaps lift the corner of the rug a little and give us an insight into what is happening underneath? Is the real fact of this matter that many important Labour councillors would be disqualified if our amendment were accepted, and is that why the Secretary of State is so anxious, first, to put up a smokescreen to distract attention from such an unworthy motive and, secondly, to ensure that these important people do not risk any penalties? It certainly looks like it.
Looking back on it, one wonders whether that is not what the Attorney-General had in mind when in the Second Reading debate he said:
We believe that the Government could not have waited longer, and that we now have enough information to enable and require us to take action to avert
these are the important words—
great potential damage to local authorities".—[Official Report, 24th March 1975; Vol. 889, c. 157.]
It looks now as if what the Government had in mind was that some important Labour councillors would cease to be councillors because they could not say that their actions were reasonable or that they believed that their actions were authorised by law; because they would have to admit that they had said "to hell with the law and to hell with Parliament".
That raises suspicions which give rise to many questions. Are we not perhaps witnessing the most squalid exercise in rescuing political friends that can ever have been seen in this country? Are we not perhaps witnessing the most squalid example of a Labour Cabinet taking instructions from its party conference and, to make it worse, pretending that that is not the case? Would they have done this but for Resolution 191? Except for the Clay Cross councillors what they are doing is exactly what resolution 191 enjoined them to do, except that they are not carrying it out in full in respect of the Clay Cross councillors.
And the hon. Member for Toxteth will forgive me for borrowing a question he asked: would they have done this if the offending councillors had been Conservatives

and not Socialists? Of course they would not. If they had gone as far as we have gone in our new clause, they would have been boasting how generous they had been to those Conservative councillors. Let us have an end to humbug. Let us have some straight talking in this matter.
I suggest that this amendment ought to appeal both to those who are most closely concerned with the Clay Cross councillors and to the Secretary of State. The amendment should appeal to the Clay Cross councillors and their friends, first, because it is considerably better for them than are any of the other courses of action and, secondly, because it ensures that they are treated on the same footing as everyone else. Whatever the basis, why should not they be treated on the same footing?
Let me demonstrate these two points by a quick look at the three choices, which are that Clause 4 stays, Clause 4 goes and that this and the Lords amendment stand. If Clause 4 stays, no, if Clause 4 goes, these people are thrown to the wolves. They get no relief at all. That looks as though it will happen unless our amendment is accepted. That would ensure that they were treated like everyone else.
If Clause 4 stays, each of these people will still be liable for a sum of £5 short of £7,000. I hope that no one imagines that it is as easy as Mr. David Skinner is reported to have suggested today. I do not know whether the report is accurate, but he has been reported as saying that he was not going to pay, that he would give up his job and go on social security, and that people could go hang for their money. I do not suppose he said that, but if he did say it and people imagine that it is as easy as that, they have it wrong. It is a serious matter for anyone to be under liability to pay that amount of money because the law will catch up with him in the end.
The third choice is to carry our amendment and leave new Clause A in the Bill. What then would be the position of the Clay Cross councillors? First of all, they would have the benefit of this provision like everyone else. Their liability would immediately be limited to £1,000. It need not be that much, because we say that in deciding how much each person should pay, up to a maximum of £1,000, the court should have regard to the means of each


person. That is surely a sensible suggestion.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the case would be taken jointly or severally, with a maximum of £1,000 altogether? Or would the liability be £1,000 individually? If he means the latter, the Clay Cross councillors would be called upon to pay more than they are being called upon for now.

Mr. Percival: It does not mean that. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that if he is bothered about it. The £1,000 would be a maximum, and if the amount at issue was, say, only £500, no one would be ordered to pay more. The court would have regard to the means of the parties, as it should be able to, and could therefore ensure that these gentlemen, who were grievously misled by their own leaders who should have known better, and were egged on to do things which they might not otherwise have done—that might be a good case of mitigation before the court—paid no more than their means allowed. They could speak for themselves, or get someone to do so, and ask for their liability to be limited to a modest sum.
It is incontrovertible that our proposal would give them a better chance of limiting their liability than either of the other alternatives. Furthermore, the court could let them off some of the disqualification if satisfied, on being asked to do so by them or their counsel, that there were grounds for doing so. I do not think that anyone could quarrel with the proposition that they would as individuals be in a better position, if the amendment were carried and new Clause A remained in the Bill, than they would be either if Clause 4 remained or if Clause 4 went.
The other thing is that they would then be on the same footing as everyone else. Of course, to gain that benefit hon. Members opposite have to vote for the amendment and new Clause A. But why should not these other people be under the same potential liabilities as the Clay Cross councillors? In one go, we could put everyone on the same footing. I suggest to the hon. Member for Derbyshire,

North-East (Mr. Swain) and his hon. Friends, who are very closely connected with this matter, that it would be very much in the interests of those for whom they have fought for so long to join us in taking these steps.
7.15 p.m.
I suggest that this proposal ought also to appeal to the Secretary of State because, on Report, as well as before, he made such a point of wanting a Bill that was consistent. On Report, he said:
The crux of the matter is that we should have been inconsistent and unfair had we lifted the threat of disqualification from all the other councillors while allowing the Clay Cross councillors to stay disqualified for failing to implement the Act.
Later, he said:
We see this"—
Clause 4—
not as an act of mitigation, or as a matter of whether the Housing Commissioner should have gone in earlier. We see it in terms of making the Bill consistent and fair, taking the Bill as a whole, as between all councillors—the 400 or so who have declined to implement the provisions of the 1972 Act.
He went on:
I must maintain parity of treatment between those many councillors and the Clay Cross councillors who have been surcharged already.
Finally, he said:
I ask for parity and equity of treatment between all those who failed to implement the Act, whether the surcharge had been made—as it was in the case of Clay Cross—or whether it had not been made, as was the case in all the other places."—[Official Report, 14th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 564–593.]
That is exactly what we offer the right hon. Gentleman by our amendment and new Clause A. It is the only way in which he can have that which he has said he wants. It is the way in which he could have his Bill on a basis which he has said is to him the fundamental basis that he wants to achieve.
We are not unaware of the political pressures being put upon the right hon. Gentleman. I do not underestimate the personal courage which would be required to rebuff those who are engaged in the squalid, outrageous political manoeuvrings which lie behind all this. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman from my heart, if he has any respect for this House, if he has any respect for parliamentary democracy, and if he has any respect for the rule of law, let him now


prove it by recommending his hon. Friends to accept the amendment.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I do not propose to speak at length because most of the points I would have made have been made by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I was desirous of putting this amendment down myself, but found it had already been tabled by the Opposition, and I did not know whether my name to it would give it added lustre or detract from it, so I left it as it was.
I have opposed most of this Bill from the inception, primarily because I believe that if we are to mete out justice we have to do it through the recognised courts. We know that the councillors about whom we are concerned were under tremendous pressures from all sorts of organisations. We can understand how some of the councillors acted as they did. I believe that many of them acted in that way because they were misled by people in my party who should have known better and should have set a better example. I believe that, not in so many words but by nods and winks, many people were encouraged to break the law. Therefore, if these provisions go through such matters will be taken into consideration.
It is ironic that a Bill which has come to be called the "Clay Cross Bill" did something for almost all councillors except the Clay Cross councillors. Those councillors would have had to pay the surcharge and automatically would have been made bankrupt eventually, and indeed would have been disqualified from ever being councillors again.

Mr. Swain: I believe my hon. Friend is a lawyer, and if he has studied the Local Government Act 1933 he will know that there are two ways in which an auditor can collect a surcharge. First, he can go to the magistrate's court for a distress warrant against goods and chattels, and, secondly, he can go to the county court for an order of attachment. That piece of legislation appears to make my hon. Friend's argument this evening quite worthless.

Mr. Crawshaw: I disagree with my hon. Friend. Ultimately a person can be made bankrupt to enable him to pay what is required. In those circumstances he would be disqualified from sitting on a

council. Therefore, the provision gives nothing to the Clay Cross councillors whatever.
I have always said that we should mitigate the punishment against these people, provided that this can be done through a court of law and not by an arbitrary decision taken by the Government Front Bench. That is the element to which I have objected throughout the Bill. If we are asked to use the poor box to help these people, I would be the first to agree—again provided that these matters are handled through the courts of law rather than by my party sitting here in Government.
Furthermore, I believe that all those people who have disobeyed the provisions of the Housing Finance Act should be put on the same plane. There are two categories of people concerned. I am surprised that there are so many of my hon. Friends who are prepared to see the Clay Cross councillors take a secondary position compared with other councillors. The Clay Cross councillors are to bear the whole brunt, whereas the others will get away 100 per cent. free. It is just not logical.
I urge my hon. Friends, particularly those who have fought so hard for the Clay Cross councillors, to consider this matter very carefully. Under the provision as it stands, there will be 100 per cent. exemption for some councillors and the others will have to pay the surcharge.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Your arithmetic is wrong.

Mr. Crawshaw: My arithmetic may be wrong, but the councillors concerned will find great difficulty in finding the money with which to bear the surcharge. However, under the amendment the maximum would be £1,000.

Mr. Skinner: Your mathematics are still wrong.

Mr. Crawshaw: If we pass the amendment, the Clay Cross councillors will have the possibility of having their cases heard again by the High Court and they could be put in a position were they would be surcharged not more than £1,000.

Mr. Skinner: I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend in seeking to make the situation as clear as he can, but the fact is that on a purely arithmetical basis the


11 Clay Cross councillors currently are charged a figure of about £8,000, with accrued interest, compared with the previous surcharge of £7,895. Among 11 councillors that represents less than £1,000 apiece. In seeking to act—I believe misguidedly—in the best interests of those he is trying to help, my hon. Friend is suggesting that £11,000 is less than £8,000. I just cannot believe it.

Mr. Crawshaw: As I understand the situation, the figures are much higher than that and each councillor is personally liable for the whole amount. That is the difference.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the present situation the auditor could choose to proceed against each individual councillor for the whole £7,000, whereas under the clause they would be limited to a maximum of £1,000 at the most?

Mr. Crawshaw: That is exactly the point I was seeking to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If my hon. Friends who wish to support the Clay Cross councillors cannot support the amendment, I believe that there must be some other reason for so doing which I cannot possibly understand.

Mr. Skinner: It is the question of the money.

Mr. Crawshaw: If my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover allows me to proceed without interruptions, I am sure that my hon. Friend will have time to make his speech later. I repeat that if my hon. Friends do not support the amendment, they are depriving the Clay Cross councillors of the opportunity of being dealt with in the same way as any other councillor.
I wonder what answer my hon. Friends will give when they attend this year's Labour Party conference when they are told that the provision mentions Clay Cross councillors only. Nobody knows who are the others affected, but they are the people over whom apparently the fight has taken place. I can only assume that my hon. Friends wish the Clay Cross case to be used as a source of discontent within the party and the country. I can see no other reason.
It is hardly likely that any of the councillors, in view of their financial position,

will be surcharged anything like £1,000. Mitigating circumstances will be put forward and again it is unlikely that they will be disqualified for a period of five years.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I am confused about the present situation and I would ask my hon. Friend to help us. One councillor who goes before the court may be a careful, modest-living man, who has some small savings for his old age and who might even have £1,000 in the Post Office. On the other hand, another councillor before the court might be a person who has lived it up over the years and he may be able to prove to the court that he is up to his ears in hire purchase, that his wife owns the family house and all the rest of it. How will the court act in those two entirely different cases? Surely the provision will give the court an impossible judgment to arrive at.

Mr. Crawshaw: I do not agree that it will put the court in an impossible situation. As I know the courts, they pay high regard to a person's financial situation. If people are out of work and come before the court, it is likely that there will be no surcharge at all. I must emphasise that I am not seeking to exonerate the councillors completely from the law, but I am seeking to ensure that the situation is fair as between the Clay Cross councillors and the other councillors who would get away with it totally. If my hon. Friends have any regard for the Clay Cross councillors, they will support this provision. I must inform them that when it comes to the vote, I shall support both the amendment and the clause.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Swain: It will only take me two minutes to put my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) straight. He attended the meeting on Thursday night, and a collective decision was made. My hon. Friend saw fit to criticise the Tribune Group last week, but this week he has issued his own whip and sent round to hon. Members, including myself, who represent Clay Cross, a copy of his letter. If my hon. Friend wants the Clay Cross councillors to be served as the other 400, or conversely the other 400 to be served as the Clay Cross councillors, he should have tabled an amendment to the Lords amendment asking my right


hon. Friend to guarantee protection under resolution 191 of the conference. In that way everyone would be granted immunity.
The Clay Cross councillors are suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth has done his arithmetic all wrong, as has the hon. and learned Member for South-port (Mr. Percival). Only a few weeks ago the Conservatives were castigating the Clay Cross councillors but now they are appealing to the Clay Cross councillors in order to get sympathy for their own case. I know that hypocrisy is an unparliamentary word.

Mr. Percival: With respect, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) has entirely overlooked the wording of the new clause. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will, if he so wishes, make a speech, instead of coming in late when the point has been explained and sitting moaning and wailing like I do not know what.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has overlooked the fact that in the new clause the total amount to be surcharged on the eleven councillors cannot exceed £6,985 because the only amount that any of them can be ordered to pay is a part of the deficiency—they cannot, between them, be ordered to pay more than the total deficiency. That is a fact. If the hon. Gentleman had overlooked that point, I quite understand, and I quite understand if the Member for Bolsover had not understood. Can we now debate this matter on the right facts with the right approach instead of having a very specious argument like the present one?

Mr. Swain: That is a hell of a lot more money and I understand that the hon. Member for Toxteth also agrees. The Clay Cross councillors were surcharged after six weeks and the surcharge worked out at £6,985 each—jointly or severally. As a consequence of this amendment, that six weeks' surcharge, which is now the subject of perhaps a bankruptcy order, will carry on automatically until it becomes £1,000 per member, again jointly or severally, under the amendment. There was a deuce of a lot of money outstanding at Clay Cross. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is trying to marry two male prostitutes, and

they will not have it. He is trying to convince me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that this is quite a reasonable thing to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
I apologise to the male prostitutes. Under this amendment even the Clay Cross councillors would be worse off financially because of the continuation of the amount up to £1,000. [An Hon. Member: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. I was the leader at Clay Cross. I take the whole responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman who was the Minister at that time was so crooked in his ministerial post that if he swallowed a nail he would part with a corkscrew on that particular issue. He surcharged and sent in the auditors after six weeks. That is why Clay Cross has been the centre of the issue. However 400 councillors will get the benefit, indeed 411 including Clay Cross.
I am not satisfied with the amount of benefit Clay Cross is receiving. I am not on speaking terms with my right hon. and hon. Friends on this issue, because my right hon. Friend should have implemented resolution 191 regardless. He should not have come to the House, having had a dream in the night, and then changed it all round to make it look beneficial to 400 but throw 11 on the sacrificial altar. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth agrees with me on that point. He will march for charity, but not for Socialism. I shall march for Socialism.
I appeal to the House to support the Government. The amendment must be rejected tonight.

Mr. Peter Rees: I think that the most I can say about the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) is that his loyalty to his erstwhile comrades is touching but his grasp of the constitutional and legal implications of the Bill and the amendment is rather slight.
The House has been round this course before. There is now an extra dimension to our debate. On the first occasion we were concerned with the position of district auditors, the maintenance of at least some standards in local government, the position of ratepayers as a body as opposed to council house tenants, and


the retrospective condemnation of flagrant breaches of the law. Finally, and perhaps not least importantly, we were concerned with the constitutional position of the Attorney-General.
We are now being asked by the Government to override the carefully argued, thoughtfully expressed, views of another place. The Labour Party, having emasculated the second Chamber and flouted practically every constitutional convention, is naturally concerned to railroad through this Bill. However, it has, by its actions, demonstrated a clear need either for a stronger upper House or for some entrenched provisions, such as a new Bill of Rights. These possibly are some of the principles which we should be canvassing tonight in the various debates which I hope we shall have.
There used to be a strong antipathy in the country to the dispensing power exercised by the Crown. There is equal antipathy to a dispensing power exercised by a highly partisan, if rather ephemeral, parliamentary majority. Those who compose it seem more concerned with one particular class of ratepayers than with the whole body of ratepayers. I had hoped that the other place, which by convention is how I must describe the House of Lords, had perhaps let the Secretary of State off the hook. I pay the right hon. Gentleman the compliment and tribute that I suspect that his heart is not in this work. I am sorry that he feels obliged to return to the House and go over this rather muddy course again. I hope that he will pay great attention to the views expressed by the Opposition. Surely he must agree that it would be better for the matters canvassed in the clause to be determined in the calmer, more dispassionate atmosphere of the courts rather than in the fevered atmosphere of this Chamber in August.
I cannot say what the outcome in the courts would be, but I remind the House that there was an escape route open to the Clay Cross councillors under the Local Government Act 1933. They could have taken that route and appealed against their disqualification on the basis that they had reasonable grounds for acting in the way that they did. However, surprisingly enough they did not choose to take that course, and they cannot

now complain that they did not have proper legal advice, because by a curious coincidence they were represented on that occasion by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). Therefore, perhaps the hon. Member can tell the House why they are so sceptical of their chances in a court of law under this amendment.

Mr. Swain: I could tell you.

Mr. Rees: It could be that the hon. Gentleman will tell us, because he has told us that he accepts full responsibility for what went on.

Mr. Swain: I am not afraid. It has happened to me before.

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Swain: I have been down that same road before. I was in No. 8 cell in Winson Green Prison. It was the first time in my life that I got three meals a day.

Mr. Rees: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that in his present position he should be a little more scrupulous about observing the laws in this place introduced and passed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can make his point, if he dares, later in the debate. I am concerned with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. No doubt we are all touched by his reminiscences about his earlier happenings in his career. He say that he takes full responsibility for what happened at Clay Cross. As he says that he takes full responsibility for what happened at Clay Cross, let him pay the surcharge.

Mr. Swain: At any rate I am not a crooked lawyer.

Mr. Rees: Who is the hon Gentleman suggesting is a crooked lawyer? Would the hon Gentleman care to stand up and say who he suggests is a crooked lawyer?

Mr. Swain: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) is going to burst a blood vessel in a moment. If the cap fits, he can wear it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am afraid the cap will not


fit. That was an unparliamentary expression. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) must withdraw it. It is desirable to keep the temper of the House down, if possible.

Mr. Swain: Is it only the hon. and learned Member with the massive head of hair who is going to have your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Am I not to be given any protection against his bit-tongue? These are the only speeches that the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) makes for nothing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Most certainly I will give the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East the protection of the Chair when it is necessary. Can we proceed with the debate in an even temper? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The hon. Gentleman must withdraw his remark.

Mr. Swain: It is often said by Mr. Speaker that he is conveniently deaf. I notice that you, when I stand up to speak, are occasionally short-sighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I withdraw the words that I used and I apologise to every crooked lawyer in this country for bringing him down to the level of the people who sit on the opposite side of the House to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged.

Mr. Rees: I accept the hon. Gentleman's withdrawal but not his apology.
Our sympathy should perhaps go out to the Secretary of State because of the company he keeps today. Perhaps the saddest aspect of this whole case is the way that the Labour Party treats some of its most distinguished spokesmen.
I am paying this tribute by design to the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General. We know that they left Oxford and the law school with ideals of pride and with thoughts high, with the intention of providing the Labour Party with a new philosophy and perhaps the laws of England with a new coherence. What has happened to them after a lifetime of devoted service to the Labour Party? They have become creatures—puppets—of the hon. Members for Bolsover and for Derbyshire, North-East and their Tammany associates. They will pass into

history as the refuse collectors of Clay Cross. For the sake of their reputation as well as for the country's sake, I hope that we shall uphold the Lords amendment tonight.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If I may seek to lower the tone a little, I, as a fairly new Member of the House, should like sincerely to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who made a brave and honourable speech. That should be made clear from this side, certainly from this bench.
I also wish to pay tribute to the Lords amendment, which is understandable, compassionate and fair. I served on the Standing Committee and listened to innumerable arguments between lawyers for many hours, but at the end of it all I did not understand half of it. I understand these arguments and I understand the argument which took place in the other place between the noble Lords. They have their priorities right. They have it right in Clause 1. Therefore, these Lords amendments should be approved by the House tonight.
I go one step further. Having read all about Clay Cross and taken an interest in it and listened to the speech made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I understand some of the idealism of the councillors of Clay Cross. I do not support what they did, but I understand them and their frustrations. I shall be supporting these Lords amendments, but I listened to the speech of the hon. Member when the Bill was first introduced to the House and I have some feeling for his case. I have told him so.
I understand the way in which in poorer areas of the country councillors have desperately wanted to do something better. One cannot as a councillor ever support what they did. Why should not this be spread right across the board? Why should the Clay Cross councillors be the only ones who are thrown up in this way? If other councillors have gone against the Bill—we understand that there are 400 of them—as the hon. Member for Toxteth said, they should all be in the same boat together. That is why these amendments should be supported.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Briefly, I should like to deal with the principle behind the objection of the three Opposition speakers who have taken part. They have used as the basis of their argument the claim that every law must be obeyed in all circumstances. I do not think that is a tenable position.
If a Labour Government introduced a Bill to make it compulsory for comprehensive education to be introduced, do hon. and learned Members opposite argue that every Conservative councillor who refused on principle to accept that should be bankrupted? It is possible that some hon. Members would accept that, but I am not sure that all of them would.
To take it a little further, let us suppose that a Labour Government, or indeed any Government, did something as extreme as that done by Pharaoh, who introduced the edict of the slaughter of the firstborn. There are some things so unconscionable that some hon. Members opposite would not accept them. Some of them would not have accepted the edicts of Hitler. Because some men refused to accept Hitler's laws, they lost their lives and those of their families in concentration camps.
It may be objected that neither Pharaoh nor Hitler was the head of a democratic Government, but in this country there have been democratically elected Governments who have done things so abhorrent, so against the principles of ordinary men and women, that ordinary men and women were prepared to be sent away from their families to Australia for refusing to obey the law.
If in Tolpuddle there had not been men prepared to refuse to accept the law which made trade unions virtually illegal, there would be no trade union movement today. The same kind of stand was made by the women of the suffragette movement and by people serving other great causes. [Interruption] Let me finish this point and I will take any questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) finished his point and would not take a question from me.
I am saying that there are democratically elected Governments which have been resisted by men and women on matters of conscience, and they have become greatly honoured for it. I greatly

honour the 400 councillors in Clay Cross and in the part of the country from which I come who were prepared to risk losing their homes and possessions because they kept their pledge. They believed that to increase rents unnecessarily was wrong.

Mr. Tony Newton: I should like to take the hon. Member back from his more recent flights of fancy to what he said about comprehensive education. I come from Essex and have made it absolutely clear that, although I shall help to fight the Government's proposals, I shall not support anybody in refusing to observe the law—or what may become the law. Am I to understand, from what the hon. Gentleman says, that if Conservative councillors' defy the law, as it may become, on comprehensive education he will be demanding their indemnification? That is what he appears to be saying.

Mr. Allaun: I am putting the question back to the hon. Gentleman. He must answer the question. If they break the law, are they to be bankrupted? If he says "Yes", I accept that, but I go further. If there is a law introduced which the hon. Gentleman finds absolutely contrary to his conscience and belief, must he in all circumstances obey it? He may reply "Yes, I am prepared to do it and prepared to accept the consequences." Fair enough; but so were the councillors at Clay Cross. It is we who are asking for this, not they, and they are entitled to their point of view.
The agricultural labourers of Tolpuddle are greatly honoured, but their rights were restored to them. Surely we are not doing anything wrong in wishing to restore to the councillors of Clay Cross their rights.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has, in the course of his argument, referred to the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I remind the House that there were also the five dockers who broke the law, and it was the Conservative Government at that time who discovered an unknown Official Solicitor who was able to get them out of their difficulty.

Mr. Allaun: My hon. Friend's remarks support the point I am making, which is simply that there are certain laws which are so repugnant that men


and women of conscience are prepared to break them. If some of us are ready to defend them—as I for one am—we are entitled to do so.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should first like to remind the House of the terms of the amendment which is before it. I listened with great interest and care to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). Quite properly, he went into some of the aspects of the clause that we shall be discussing later. I do not quarrel about that, but I should like to keep very specifically to the terms of the amendment.
It is clear that this amendment has been moved in what I am bound to describe as a misguided and confused attempt to provide consistency. Conservative Members must recognise that their amendment is blatantly retrospective. It provides for the reopening of a case which has already gone through the courts. Indeed, the surcharge which would be reconsidered if the amendment were accepted is already the subject of bankruptcy proceedings. It is not in the least clear what effect the amendment would have on these proceedings.

Mr. Crawshaw: There seems to be some difficulty about retrospective legislation because it has gone through the courts, but are we not in Clause 4 seeking to remove a surcharge that has already gone through the courts? I am sorry. I meant the disqualification.

Mr. Armstrong: I should like to put the lay view in this matter because, with great respect, the lawyers get mixed up from time to time. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a specific allegation about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State being afraid to reveal to the House and the country the names of the councils which are affected. He will know that this is a matter for the district auditor. The district auditor has yet to conduct hearings, and therefore the Government obviously cannot prejudge the issue. I can recognise that there might be a genuine wish for even treatment in allowing the courts to reconsider the disqualification which was simply an automatic consequence of the Clay Cross surcharge. But I say to the House, in all seriousness, that it would be unwise to

put the whole matter through the courts again after it has already been the subject of lengthy appeals.
The amendment is muddled in content and misguided in intent. It attaches to a clause to which we are wholly opposed. Touched as I am by the concern expressed by the Opposition tonight for the Clay Cross councillors after the extravagant abuse they have used on previous occasions, I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I was feeling sorry for the Under-Secretary of State in having to intervene in this debate. He was not involved in our earlier proceedings, and the House knows him as a decent and honest man, but I really think that the answer he has just given us a very pathetic answer indeed. I believe that he is worthy of something very much better than that.
The hon. Gentleman produced the argument that the amendment we are discussing is a misguided and confused attempt to provide consistency. He produced absolutely no reasons at all to support that point of view. He complained only that it was blatantly retrospective, when it is obvious that the whole force of Clause 4 is retrospective.
This debate was opened by my hon. and learned Friend—

Mr. Swain: Clause 4 cannot be retrospective, because the people concerned have already served two years of the sentence.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Raison: It is retrospective in relation to their disqualification. The debate was opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) with a speech which I think commanded a great deal of support from all hon. Members who are seriously concerned about this matter. My hon. and learned Friend argued the case very carefully and persuasively. His speech was followed by that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), to whom I want to pay my respect, because he set out the issue with great clarity and dignity.
Then the debate slid a little. I might say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) that it is clear


that, as a result of our amendment, none of these councillors would have to pay more than under the present situation. That is clear and categoric.
The final contribution from the back benches was the bizarre speech by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), the relevance of which was barely perceptible. The hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that the whole essence of what we were trying to do was to provide fairer treatment for the Clay Cross councillors. He might have made some reference to that which is the salient part of the case for this amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend's case is incontrovertible. I ask the House to support it.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 271.

Division No. 318.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Bid well, Sydney
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, Norman
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bradley, Tom
Cartwright, John


Bates, Alt
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bean, R. E.
Buchan, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchanan, Richard
Cohen, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Coleman, Donald




Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Radice, Giles


Corbett, Robin
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Ryman, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kerr, Russell
Selby, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sillars, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litterick, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Snape, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spearing, Nigel


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, John (Newton)
Mahon, Simon
Swain, Thomas


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tomney, Frank


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Torney, Tom


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mendelson, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


George, Bruce
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Ward, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Molloy, William
Watkins, David


Graham, Ted
Moorman Eric
Watkinson, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weetch, Ken


Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Hardy, Peter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hatton, Frank
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Horam, John
Owen, Dr David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Howell, Dennis (B'ham, Sm H)
Padley, Walter
Wilson Alexander (Hamilton)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Huckfield, Les
Park, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)
Parker, John
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest
Mr. David Stoddart and


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Mr. James Hamilton.







NOES


Adley, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mudd, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey


Alison, Michael
Griffiths, Eldon
Nelson, Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Normanton, Tom


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth
Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Banks, Robert
Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow West)


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt Hon P. Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Paisley, Rev Ian


Benyon, W.
Havers, Sir Michael
Pardoe, John


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pattie, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Penhaligon, David


Blaker, Peter
Henderson, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)
Howell, David (Gulldford)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raison, Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hurd, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brotherton, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carson, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Channon, Paul
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Churchill, W. S.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kirk, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John Stevas, Norman


Cockcroft, John
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lane, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cordle, John H.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Corrie, John
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester, Fred


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul IN. Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Drayson, Burnaby
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Durant, Tony
MecCormick, Iain
Spence, John


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fell, Anthony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mates, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Freud, Clement
Mayhew, Patrick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Trotter, Neville


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Peter
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Wakeham, John


Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Goodlad, Alastair
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wall, Patrick


Gorst, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walters, Dennis


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Warren, Kenneth


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Watt, Hamish







Weatherill, Bernard
Wiggin, Jerry



Wells, John
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Welsh, Andrew
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve.

[For Division List 319 see col. 187]

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I understand that it is convenient to discuss at the same time the Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
The amendment is substantially similar to one moved by the Opposition on Report. Our principal objection then, as now, was that the effect of the clause would be to draw out this sorry affair. In each case where the district auditor decided to issue a rent loss certificate it would be referred to the courts, which would consider whether the councillors responsible for any surchargeable loss should be required to make good any part of such loss up to £1,000 each, and whether they should be disqualified from civic office for up to five years.
The effect would be that month after month, year after year, local government would receive the verdicts on events which are already in most cases more than three years old. The details and arguments about events in each of the 18 or so councils concerned would be dragged through the courts and the Press. Irreparable

damage would be done to a service already under great pressure from Press and public, to individuals and their families and to councils and the areas for which they acted.
8.15 p.m.
All this would come at a time when local government is urgently in need of the trust and confidence of the public. Involvement and service in public life are more demanding and difficult today than ever before. Local government reorganisation, the effects of inflation and increasing demands by ratepayers on public services have all contributed to the growing criticism and denigration of a service which is vital to our democratic way of life. The House should ponder long and carefully before adding to the difficulties in the way envisaged by the clause.
Under our proposals in Clause 1 the normal procedure of the district auditor is not altered save at the point of surcharge. This means that he must carry out a very full investigation of each case, and there must be a public hearing at which local electors may object formally to any loss or expenditure incurred by their former council. The district auditor must completely satisfy himself whether any items of account are illegal or whether any losses were caused by negligence or misconduct.
I have the greatest respect for district auditors. They have considerable experience in determining just this sort of issue. But the Opposition, by the terms of their clause, appear to lack confidence in that experience, for they demand that after the district auditor has carried out his detailed investigation the court should cover exactly the same ground again.
It is more than likely that on such a difficult issue there would be appeals to higher courts. Only after a lengthy process would the local authorities know how much of the loss of rent would be left for them to recover from the local community. Incidentally, this is a defect in the Bill as it has been returned to us. Under the definition of "effective date" of the rent loss certificate in Clause 1, a local authority might well have to commence recovery of the lost rent before knowing how much was to be recovered as a result of a court's decision under the new clause.
The new clause conclusively demonstrates the unwillingness of the Opposition to close the book, to show any appreciation of the strong feelings that were raised by the Housing Finance Act. They are, apparently, determined to extract personal penalties at any cost. They fail to recognise the main object of the Bill, which is to put this divisive affair behind us and allow local authorities to recover their losses from the local community.
The clause would probably impose extra legal costs to be borne by the authorities. It would certainly increase bitterness and cynicism about local government, and would bring benefit to nobody.
Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Raison: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) made clear in the previous debate that, although Clause 4 has had most of the limelight, it is Clause 1 that matters most and is the real outrage. Clause 1 establishes something that we accept—the rent loss certificate. We believe that that is the right approach. What the Lords amendment does, following the Opposition's approach in this House, is to say that, instead of the certificate being the end of the matter for the councillors, there shall be a further certificate stating the sum and the people who would have been surcharged.
This certificate would be sent to the court, which could order individuals to pay up to £1,000 of the surcharge and, where the total loss exceeds £2,000, be liable to disqualification for up to five years. We stress that the court should have regard to all the circumstances including ability to pay. We have argued this scheme at length, both in Committee and on Report. I do not propose to repeat every word of those arguments.
The scheme which the Lords have put into the Bill contains certain essential points. First, I believe it to be true that that the scheme has never been seriously attacked on the ground of whether it stands up. The Under-Secretary has just criticised it on technical grounds, but it is a criticism that could easily be corrected if the will were there. No significant technical faults have been found with the scheme. Furthermore, the

Government spokesmen acknowledged during the Committee stage and until today that the scheme is a thoroughly constructive one. The Attorney-General said on Report that:
It is a carefully constructed attempt…to mitigate the rigours of the law for the benefit of those who would otherwise have been surcharged and might have been disqualified for failure to implement the Housing Finance Act."—[Official Report, 14th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 490.]
That statement was echoed by other Ministers in earlier proceedings. It is a careful attempt to deal with this difficult problem. More than that, it is a scheme that tempers justice with mercy. As hon. Members have said, it could well serve as a prototype for the future legislation which many of us believe we shall have to have in place of the scheme that existed in the 1933 Local Government Act and was substantially varied in the 1972 Act.

Mr. David Weitzman: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that if this scheme were adopted we could have long-drawn-out proceedings in the courts, possibly appeals, considerable expense and a great deal of bitterness and cynicism? Surely he will pay attention to that important fact.

Mr. Raison: I shall deal with that point in a moment. When one breaks the law one has to face the consequences. The vital point, which has never been met by the Government, is that this amendment upholds the principle that if councillors defy the law they must expect to face the consequences. It is no good quoting, as the Attorney-General did in Committee, dubious precedents. The fact is that if the Government allow the Bill through in the form they want, they will have no answer to future councillors who might choose to defy the law, whether it is over the Community Land Bill, comprehensive education, the mysterious, secret magical, mystery incomes Bill or anything else.
I repeat, what would the Secretary of State do if, on some future occasion, councillors broke the law and turned to him saying "Why cannot you let us off as you let the Clay Cross councillors off and the other 400 who defied the Housing Finance Act?"? The Secretary of State and the Attorney-General have


never answered that question, which is absolutely crucial to the whole debate.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport said during the last debate and as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) said, the effect of the Lords amendment is to take this matter out of the political arena into that of the courts. This must be right in principle. The courts can consider this matter dispassionately. However, it must be many more times right in this case than in any other when the political jobbery involved in what we are discussing has been so blatant. It is utterly wrong that the Secretary of State should contemplate coming to the aid of Labour councillors in this way.
I shall not go over again the disgraceful story of the 1973 Labour Party conference, the sayings of the Leader of the House and so on. They are on the record and remain as a deep shame to Labour Members. However, the point about taking this out of politics has been reinforced by the dreadful happenings reported to have taken place at the Parliamentary Labour Party's meeting last week. My hon. and learned Friend has quoted what the Secretary of State said, and the right hon. Gentleman has not denied the truth of the Press reports in the Daily Telegraph. He said that the object of the Lords:
is to wreck the Bill and preferably to wreck the Labour Party as well.
Those 400 councillors would be dragged one by one through the courts. Many would suffer heavy fines and most would be disqualified.
We should be forced into a series of by-elections on grounds of our opponents' choosing, and some of the best Labour-controlled local authorities in the country would be decimated in the process. That is what their Lordships want to see.
I do not believe that this consideration has played any part in the opposition to the Bill. I can say with absolute truth and honesty that in all the thinking I have done on the Bill and in all the discussions I have had with my hon. Friends about it, this consideration has never arisen. It is up to the Secretary of State now to confirm or deny those Press reports. We are faced with a piece of nauseous and craven party pleading. The fact is, as the Secretary of State is only too aware, that the Labour Party conference will be held in a few weeks' time and he has

the National Executive Committee breathing down his neck, and apparently he has his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) advancing a point of view which I should have thought was utterly distasteful to anyone who cared about the sovereignty of Parliament over that of party.
I say to the Secretary of State that it is not too late to accept the entirely rational approach which is embodied in the Lords amendment. Without this amendment the Government's approach is wrong and it will not—this was the essence of what the Under-Secretary said—bury the matter.
The Government have to recognise that the procedure of the rent loss certificate will have to be gone through. The recovery of uncollected rent will have to take place from tenants or ratepayers, and under the Government's Bill this can be spread out for over five years. Therefore, the notion that we can wipe the slate clean instantaneously under the Bill is a complete fallacy. The resentment against the Government's proposals would linger on for at least half another decade.
Above all, if the Government's approach on this clause is accepted, the rule of law will be lastingly scarred. I appeal therefore to the House to support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that Clause 1 is the most important clause of the Bill. As we have learnt already this evening, the words "Clay Cross" or "Clause 4" give rise to an extremely emotive matter. However, in practical effect Clause 4 is dead because, as I understand the position, the councillors are already disqualified for other reasons and in any event the Bill does not attempt to remove the surcharge from them. Therefore, the practical effect of Clause 4 is nil.
The practical effect of Clause 1, on the other hand, is immense. We are faced with a matter of great importance and one which incorporates an important principle. The principle is: should or should not people be required to face the consequences of their acts when they choose deliberately to ignore and not to carry out the law of the land?


In moving the Second Reading debate of the Bill in another place, the Lord Privy Seal said that:
laws must be obeyed…We are most certainly not condoning this misconduct."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th June 1975; Vol. 361, c. 14.]
That is exactly what the Bill and this clause do—they condone the misconduct of those councillors who may be found, on audit, to have refused deliberately to carry out the law of the land.
We are, through this Bill, saying to those who so refused to obey the law and did so deliberately "Nevertheless you shall be absolved from the consequences." I believe that not only is this an important constitutional point but it is also an extremely dangerous precedent. It is in no way with disrespect to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department, that I say that I am surprised that neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General is on the Treasury Bench when a matter of this kind is being debated.
All of us have a responsibility to abide by and to accept the law. But surely that responsibility is greatest of all on those who stand for elected office. Those who are part of the democratic procedure and obtain their office through the democratic procedure, above all, have the responsibility to carry out and obey that democratic procedure.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. and learned Gentleman has got on to a very interesting point. He says that those who have been democratically elected should pay cognisance to the law—in fact, more so than the ordinary citizen. Would he also comment on a situation in which a body of people who have been democratically elected by about 62 per cent. of the electorate—slightly more than those who voted in the referendum—proceed to refuse to acknowledge the law, and then, as a result of the subsequent disqualification, not 62 per cent. but 72 per cent. of the total electorate send in another 10 councillors to do precisely the same?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: People are free to refuse to acknowledge the law but they must accept the consequences. That is all I am saying, and that is all that the clause says. Indeed, it clearly tempers the

amount of surcharge that can be imposed on any of them in order to ensure that the damage done to them personally is not so great as to drive them into bankruptcy.

Mr. John Lee: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman draw an analogy with the situation of the people in Rhodesia who committed high treason and who nevertheless were met, I think wrongly, by the Prime Minister in the "Tiger" talks—clearly on the supposition, which I think still prevails, that those people will never be prosecuted for the high treason which they committed?

Mr. Carlisle: I refuse to be drawn into arguing about Rhodesia, or about whether free democracy applies in other parts of the world. All I am saying is that where we have a free democratic system, people who obtain office by means of the ballot box and who hold their position as a result of the support of the people, as shown democratically, have the greater responsibility to accept the democratic decisions of the institutions of this country. That means that councillors, like Members of Parliament, have a particular responsibility to obey and accept the decisions of this House.
I concede to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that everybody is free to fight as hard as he can to get the law changed by democratic methods, but so long as it is the law which has been passed democratically people have a duty to carry it out. If they deliberately choose not to do so, they must be prepared to accept the consequences.
The fact is that the rule of law in this country is one and indivisible. One cannot pick and choose which laws one will obey and which laws one will disobey. Yet that is the attempt of Clause 1. Whatever the Secretary of State may protest, I have no doubt that were the councillors concerned not of the same party political persuasion as the present Government, we would never have seen legislation of this kind on the statute book.
What is the Secretary of State going to say to those ratepayers who may choose to refuse to pay any additional rate caused by this Bill, based on the precedent that councillors who should have been surcharged and disqualified have deliberately had the consequences of their


misconduct removed? It is an extremely dangerous precedent. It is the worst type of political chicanery. The Labour Government are doing it only because they are trying to help their own Labour councillors. I believe that it is a disgrace to this House that we are seeing legislation of this kind, and I hope very much that we shall vote to agree with the Lords in this amendment.

Mr. Crawshaw: On Second Reading I made some very harsh criticisms of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I do not retract anything that I said then. I would only add that I have more admiration for them now in their staying power in pursuing this Bill. I do not believe any of them have their hearts in this Bill. I believe they are committed by a party conference decision to do something which in their own hearts they know is completely contrary to the rule of law in this country.
I shall be supporting this clause. On Second Reading I criticised the surcharge method and also the automatic five years' disqualification. This seems to be in order now. The clause provides that courts will consider each case individually, and it is no good saying that because there will be many people coming before the courts we should automatically exonerate them. On that principle, many of the people queueing up for road traffic offences would also have them wiped out.
If a person says he will not obey the law, and anybody is entitled to please himself which law he wishes to obey, he should stand by what he has done and take the punishment accordingly. I am surprised that in the amendments consideration is being given to people who, in many cases, deliberately decided to go against the law. It amazes me to hear Ministers saying that we in this House rather than the courts are to decide guilt or otherwise and whether people should be surcharged. If all these people were exonerated, I would be happy—provided it was done by the courts and not by this House.
I wonder what Government Ministers will say when other people start disobeying the law. The question has already been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) a member of the same profession as myself,

and there is a Press report that Clay Cross householders had been warned by the Minister not to start a rate rebellion after they had asked him to exempt them from any penalties if they refused to pay extra rates. Once we start on this vicious circle, there is no end to it. Time after time people will assume that, because we have exonerated certain people, anything they do will be put right by their party.
The new clause is essential because it restores to the courts the job which is theirs to do—to decide whether a person should be surcharged or disqualified. We have tempered that discretion and every opportunity has been provided in Clause 2 for people to get very fair treatment. I do not see that anyone could complain about the provisions of Clause 2.
I ask the Government to put back this clause where it belongs, where the rule of law decrees it should be—not to Members of this House, but to the legal profession. The Attorney-General and his associates in the legal offices of this country, whose job is to ensure that the rule of law is carried out, are bringing in legislation making a mockery of it. The disgust I feel at the action being taken in this Bill cannot be explained. In time, every Minister will regret it in the same way as the phrases "pound in your pocket" and "at a stroke" are now regretted. Clay Cross may be forgotten this year but it will be remembered in future years.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I agree with every word of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). There is, however, a distinction between the phrases he recalled, to the equal embarrassment of both sides of the House, and what we are discussing now. Those phrases were uttered, without, perhaps, great consideration, in the heat of the moment and without the opportunity to reconsider or withdraw them. That is not the case with this Bill. The Government have had month after month to reconsider the argument and the course they have chosen to take in the Bill. There is no excuse for persisting in this unconstitutional and profoundly damaging course.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not present—

Mr. Skinner: I am here.

Mr. Mayhew: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman standing up rather than reclining like a superannuated ball boy at a bad tennis tournament, which he has been doing throughout the debate. I ask him to reflect on this. The only reason he is permitted the liberty which is enjoyed by each of us in the House and in the country is that the laws of this country make no distinction as between people and they are enforced and applied by the courts impartially. Once a precedent is set for the indemnification of people who not by accident but deliberately have flouted their duty under the law, the liberty which permits the hon. Gentleman to continue in his course of conduct has gone, and we on this side will not grieve for him but we shall grieve for the rest of our people.
The Under-Secretary of State, in his embarrassed defence of the Bill and in his opposition to the Lords amendments, said that the amendments would lead to the bringing of local government into disrepute. I could scarcely believe my ears. It is not local government officials but elected members of local authorities who have brought local governments into disrepute. If it is the Government's intention to maintain local government's hitherto deservedly high reputation for integrity, let them turn their attention to the conduct of elected members.
It was the conduct of elected members which members of another place particularly had in mind in drafting the amendment. This House, too, should be concerned with the conduct of elected members. It is trifling with words and with the people of this country to pretend that local government does not have a duty to implement and enforce Acts. Once we recognise that there is a discretion to pick and choose, we are leading the way to anarchy and the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I hope will reply to this debate, knows that perfectly well. In view of speeches such as that just made by the hon. Member for Toxteth, who have given a lifetime of service to the right hon. Gentleman's party, I wonder how he can persist in this course of action, which is a matter of the deepest shame to every Englishman.

Mr. Weitzman: I agree entirely that the rule of law should be obeyed and that if anyone disobeys the law he should pay the penalty for it. But let us be practical about this matter. A lot of airy-fairy words have been used about breaking the rule of law, and so on. Let us come down to brass tacks.
On Second Reading I mentioned certain councillors who I knew had written to the then Minister asking him to intervene in certain matters. They received no reply from him and subsequently were in default. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause provides:
The court shall not make an order…if the court is satisfied that the person authorising or incurring the expenditure, loss or deficiency in question acted reasonably or in the belief that his action was authorised by law…".
There are 400 councillors involved. What are they to do? First, they must get a certificate. Then they have to follow the court procedure. Each councillor must satisfy the court that he acted reasonably. Let us suppose that he loses and judgment is given against him. Then he goes to the Court of Appeal, where judgment may be given against him again. Possibly, a point of law will arise, which the Court of Appeal certifies as such, and on the case goes to the House of Lords, where we have another trial.
8.45 p.m.
That is not idle speculation. These are practical problems. Plainly, there might be a protracted procedure lasting for years. What is to happen to the councillors? What is to happen to the by-elections which may or may not take place? What will happen to the position of local government then?
What the Government did in this Bill—let us not talk about breaking the rule of law—was to say, from a practical point of view, that we have these instances and we shall wipe the slate clean. There will be a certificate from the district auditor, and that will be an end of the matter, subject to the recovery of the money in the different ways set out in the Bill.
What the Lords amendment does is to accept that approach but then to add to it the long procedure in the courts which may well follow. Surely, hon. Members opposite must recognise that, from a practical point of view, something ought to


be done. Indeed, a previous Tory Government did much the same in the Poplar case. Were they accused then of a breach of the rule of law? What nonsense it is to say any such thing.
My response to the Opposition is to say: "You are right in your argument about the rule of law. You are right to say that it ought not to be disobeyed, and you are right in saying that the penalty ought to be paid. But the Government, any Government, have a right to look at things from a practical point of view", as a Tory Government did in 1927, I think it was, in the Poplar case, saying that this is a proper matter on which the slate should be wiped clean. In my judgment, therefore, the Lords amendment ought to be rejected in this case.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I shall reply briefly because most of the arguments presented on both sides of the House have by now become very familiar, and it is almost impossible to say anything new at this stage in the debate. Strong language has been used by some hon. Members who have not contributed to our debates hitherto—words such as "shameful" have been flying about—and I shall revert to that later. First, however, I wish to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw).
I have for some time patiently endured from my hon. Friend what I regard as grossly unfair attacks upon me and upon the morality of my Front Bench in this matter. Let me remind my hon. Friend, therefore, when he says that we have supported this clause—not the new clause from the other place but the one that we propose for the Bill—because we were slavishly carrying out party conference decisions, that there has been no party conference decision of any kind on this matter. The only party conference decision referred to the Clay Cross councillors, nor to the 400 councillors who are affected by the clause which we are here discussing.
Let me remind my hon. Friend also, since the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), in supporting him, said that he had followed my career over many years, that neither he

nor anyone else can regard me as one of the most slavish followers of Labour Party conference decisions.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Crosland: No, I will not. My hon. Friend had his say about me, and I am having my say about him.

Mr. Crawshaw: My right hon. Friend mentioned me by name. I am grateful to him for now giving way. If my right hon. Friend is no slavish follower of party conference decisions—I shall not enter that dispute—will he answer the question which he did not answer on Second Reading? Would he be putting forward this legislation if these were Conservative councillors? If he says that he would not, will that not show it to be a piece of party legislation to help some of our own party? If he says that he would, what answer will that give to those other councils in which councillors in the future will refuse to carry out legislation which he passes?

Mr. Crosland: I shall answer that question in the course of showing that the case put by the Opposition, which, I regret to say, my hon. Friend has supported, is a case based on total hypocrisy in regard to this decision.
I have a passionate faith and belief in the rule of law. The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) treated this debate in a frivolous and contemptuous manner. For what it is worth, if we have any time left for serious argument, I make this point. I believe that the bonds holding modern civilisation are of an extremely fragile character. I have long believed that. I believe it increasingly with every year that I live. The importance of the defences—of which the rule of law is one of the most important—against anarchy and the break-up of our society cannot be exaggerated.
As I explained on Second Reading, in any civilised or democratic society there are occasions when the principle of the rule of law must be balanced against the principle of clemency. This has been a conflict of two social values which have puzzled successive Governments in every continent and in every century since the time of the ancient Greeks.
The Opposition have tried to maintain that we are making a concession here in not applying the full rigour of the law, and which they bitterly oppose. That is not the case. The Opposition do not propose to apply the full rigour of the law—and neither does the other place. This amendment displays a constructive approach, although I do not agree with it. The amendment says that the Tory Opposition, as well as the Labour Government, concede that the full rigour of the law is not to apply to the 400 councillors whom we are discussing. Therefore, to maintain that the Opposition are defending the rule of law and that the Government are bitterly attacking it is a No. 1 piece of hypocrisy.
As to the second piece of hypocrisy, my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth asked what the Government would do if Tory, not Labour, councillors were involved. The attitude adopted is not a new one. This is not the first occasion when either a Conservative Party or Government have taken such an attitude. I do not criticise the Opposition for the past occasions when they have taken that attitude. We have heard this argument before. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, we believe that Neville Chamberlain, in the famous Poplar case, went further in trespassing on the principle of the rule of law than we are in this Bill. It is the Government's view—and, I take it, the view of the Opposition—that he was justified in doing so for the same reasons as we are trying to do this—namely, to use Mr. Chamberlain's phrase, not my phrase, in the interests of wiping the slate clean.
We heard the example in Glasgow of Mr. Gordon Campbell, formerly Secretary of State for Scotland. There was the example, about which we have argued, of the former Conservative Secretary of State for Wales and the school milk row in Merthyr Tydfil. This is not a unique decision of a Labour Government alone. A decision of this kind has been made before by Tory Governments, whether it concerned Labour or Tory councillors.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Is the Secretary of State admitting that the Government are trespassing against the law? That is what he said.

Mr. Crosland: No. Any democratic Government must recognise that there are two possible social values which may be in conflict. One is the rule of law. The other is the need for clemency. Previous Conservative Governments faced with this dilemma have on more than one occasion chosen the principle of clemency and not the principle of the rule of law.

Mr. Swain: My right hon. Friend led the opposition against the then Tory Bill. He will remember the long struggle over Clause 95, dealing with the Housing Commission. Does he argue that the then Housing Minister refused to recognise that point of law and, after sitting five and a half months to get the measure on the statute book, refused to send in the Housing Commissioner at the first available moment?

Mr. Crosland: I shall not argue with my hon. Friend about that, as it has nothing to do with the Lords amendment which I am now discussing. We may have an argument when we come to Clause 4. I look forward to that. My hon. Friend, like some of my other hon. Friends, has frequently been personally offensive, and I look forward to returning his abuse in kind.

Mr. Carol Mather: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Crosland: No. I am thoroughly enjoying myself at the moment, but only with Labour interrupters. I do not want any Tory ones.
With this Lords amendment there is not a basic issue of principle on the rule of law; there is a difference between two ways of dealing with the situation. The Opposition, as well as the Government, concede that some modification of the present rigour of the law is necessary. For reasons explained by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we believe that our method is superior, and I hope that we shall reject the amendment.

Sir Michael Havers: I cannot resist going back to one or two aspects of the Under-Secretary of State's speech. He told the House that if the amendment were accepted irreparable damage would be done to the local government service, which is under great stress. He said that local government was in need of the trust and confidence


of the public and that to carry the amendment would increase the cynicism felt about local government. All those observations were in support of the amendment. The defeat of the amendment is much more likely to lead to cynicism about local government and much more likely to cause a lack of trust and confidence by the public in local government.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) raised an issue which I had not contemplated before. I may be stating it fractionally too high but, on reflection, I think it is probably right that the duty to obey the law is greater for those who stand for elected office. It must also be that the duty to uphold the law is greater for those who hold elected office, particularly in government.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) repeated the question he has asked many times, both in the Second Reading debate and on other occasions. He asked it of his right hon. Friend—perhaps I may still say—and his right hon. Friend told him that he would give the answer in the course of the debate. We wait and we wait, as we did in the Second Reading debate. What is the answer to the question? What will the Secretary of State say when others break the law and ask for the same treatment? The hon. Member for Toxteth put that question again as he did on Second Reading, and again no answer has come from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Crosland: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether, when the then Mr. Gordon Campbell made the decision he did about the Glasgow councillors, who incurred unlawful expenditure, or when the Secretary of State for Wales made his decision about Merthyr Tydfil, he supported them?

Sir M. Havers: I shall certainly not be diverted from my speech. The question put to the Secretary of State time after time is perfectly sensible and capable of a clear answer, which we still await.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) spoke again of a Government who may pick and choose who is to be relieved, an action which is putting us on the road to anarchy. The hon. and

learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) yet again raised the question of Poplar. This is not the occasion to deal with that issue. It cannot be dealt with in a debate lasting just under an hour. The hon. and learned Member was a member of the Committee and he will remember the great learning, the tremendous detail and the interest that was displayed in that and other cases by members of the Committee on both sides. A lengthy explanation was given on that occasion by the Attorney-General, and the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made constant contributions to that debate.
The Secretary of State speaks of total hypocrisy. I think he was referring to what he believed to be an interruption by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who did not say a word. The interruption was from someone else, not from him. I have not noticed any levity. My hon. and learned Friend treated the debate with the seriousness and intelligence it deserves.
9.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State says that he is a great believer in the rule of law but that the rule of law must be balanced against clemency. But that is exactly what the amendment does. It is not just to provide clemency as such, but clemency with justice, which was wholly lacking in the Government's original scheme.
This Bill is no more and no less than a Bill of indemnity—the only one in living memory, according to Lord Hailsham when he went through the precedents which he had obtained from the Lord Chancellor. His statement was never challenged. This is the only Bill of indemnity within living memory with the intention and effect of removing the consequences of law-breaking from persons who have deliberately abused their official position by defying the law unreasonably, knowing what they were doing.
Unlike any other Bill of indemnity, this one does not protect someone—usually a Minister—who has acted in good faith but in fact mistakenly. Our amendment would not create any privileged class of councillors who were responsible for deliberate defiance of the law but it would provide a degree of relief and make available to them what is not available to them now.
Under the 1933 Act the amount of surcharge and the disqualification would have followed automatically. The amendment also has the advantage that it would remove from the political arena the responsibility for assessing liability. It would put that responsibility where it belongs—in the courts. The courts are the proper tribunals because then no political element would be involved. The courts have been used for similar purposes—there is, for example, the election court where errors made during an election campaign are put right. The courts took over the old election committees and seem to have done the job very well, probably very much better than Select Committees of this House would have done in the old days.
I want to express one anxiety about what has gone on in the past few days. If newspaper reports are accurate, the Secretary of State went to a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party having indicated in advance that he would be bound by its vote. He appears to have used language very different from the language he used in his speech just now. According to the Press reports, there was a close vote in the PLP, about half the party being there. That apparently is why we are invited to reject the Lords amendments.
We are invited to do so not because of a Government decision but because this is now a Government decision decided in fact by the votes of their back benchers. If that is so, it is not only democracy gone mad but Government gone mad. It may well be that the Government, ordered to do what they have done by the Labour Party conference, and rescued, as they probably thought they had been, by the other place, have now been ordered yet again, not by the party conference but by the PLP, to restore the Bill as it was.

Mr. Crosland: This matter should be cleared up. The vote, to which I shall allude on Clause 4, at the meeting solely concerned Clause 4. On the other four matters on which we shall no doubt be voting tonight, there was no difference of opinion of any kind.

Sir M. Havers: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. If I got the matter wrong, I apologise. My reason for feeling

anxious is that it appears that the Government, based upon a decision arrived at in the Parliamentary Labour Party, are deciding to reject amendments from the other place. I wonder what will happen if we continue to be governed by the present Government for very much longer.
It seems to me that what has been decided by the other place, following very full consideration of the matter, is the correct solution. It is right because it upholds the rule of law, because it produced a degree of clemency, and also because it tempers that clemency with justice. Accordingly, I invite the House to maintain the decision in the other place.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 261.

[For Division List 320 see col. 191]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8

SUSPENSION, AND EFFECT OF ADJUDICATION ON PAYMENT AND RECOVERY

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 5, line 29, leave out "with the necessary modifications".

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords amendment No. 4.

Mr. Meacher: These are relatively technical amendments. They apply to child benefit the recovery of over-payments provisions in subsection (1) and (2) of Section 119 of the Social Security Act 1975, which may be modified in a case where benefit is paid not to the person entitled to it but to another person on his behalf. If the person to whom the benefit is paid has not exercised due care and diligence to avoid an over-payment, it will be possible to recover the over-payment from him instead of from the person on whose behalf he received the benefit.
These are uncontroversial amendments, and I hope that the Opposition will not be tempted to have another fling at them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause A

PROVISIONS AS TO THE EXCLUSION FROM A FAMILY FOR FAMILY ALLOWANCES PURPOSES OF CHILDREN ENTITLED TO NON-CONTRIBUTORY INVALIDITY PENSION.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 12, line 35, at end insert new Clause A:
A.—(1) In section 11 (which provides that certain children are not to be included in a family for family allowances purposes) of the Family Allowances Act 1965 after subsection (7) there shall be inserted—

"(8) Where a person is entitled to a non-contributory invalidity pension under section 36 of the Social Security Act 1975, he shall not be treated as included in any family as being a child for the purposes of this Act as respects any period during which he is so entitled.".


(2) In section 13(1) (regulations) of the said Act of 1965 after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—

"(f) for treating an allowance as having been paid on account of a non-contributory invalidity pension in cases where in consequence of a subsequent decision under the Social Security Act 1975 a child who had been treated as included in a family for the purposes of this Act is entitled to a non-contributory invalidity pension for any period for which the allowance was paid, and for reducing or withholding accordingly any arrears payable by virtue of the subsequent decision;
(g) for treating a non-contributory invalidity pension paid to a child which it is subsequently decided was not payable as having been paid on account of an allowance in cases where in consequence of a subsequent decision under this Act he is treated as included in a family for any period for which the non-contributory invalidity pension was paid, and for reducing or withholding accordingly any arrears payable by virtue of that subsequent decision."."

6.45 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss at the same time Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

Mr. O'Malley: The amendments apply to family allowances provisions similar to those introduced into the Bill on Report in respect of child benefit by providing that a child shall not be included in a family for the family allowances purposes for a period for which he is entitled to NCIP. Also, as with child benefit and NCIP, the clause enables regulations to provide that any family allowances paid for a period for which NCIP is subsequently awarded shall be regarded as paid on account of the arrears of NCIP and that NCIP paid for a period for which it is subsequently decided that it was not payable shall be regarded as paid on account of arrears of family allowances which become payable for that period.
Where a severely handicapped young person can establish entitlement to NCIP, it is thought better that he should become a beneficiary in his own right rather than continue to be treated as a child for either family allowances or child benefit purposes. The provisions are somewhat complex, but they are beneficial.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friends and I would like an assurance that this proposal takes nothing away from the disabled. It appears from the debate in another place that a disabled child between the ages of 16 and 19 could be eligible for family allowances and also for NCIP. I understand that the effect of Lords amendment No. 5 is to withdraw family allowances in that case, which would mean a net reduction of welfare benefit from a disabled person. Perhaps the Minister of State would confirm that that is the case and that he is proposing to deprive a family with a disabled child of family allowances.

Mr. O'Malley: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman an explanation which will satisfy him.
Non-contributory invalidity pension, which will be introduced from November 1975 under the Social Security Act 1975, will be payable at £7·90 a week. The interaction of NCIP and family allowances applies only to children aged

between 16 and 19. In this age group, NCIP is limited by legislation to children who are not in full-time education and family allowances are limited to those who are in such education. To pay family allowances as well as NCIP for a handicapped child able to follow a minimum of education would give him better treatment than a child so severely handicapped that he was incapable of undergoing any education—in which case family allowances would stop at the age of 16—and better treatment than the less severely handicapped undergoing normal education for whom NCIP could not be paid, although family allowance would continue.
In any event, family allowances would stop when the child reached the age of 19 and there would then be a drop in family income. NCIP is not taxable whereas family allowances are subject to tax and clawback, so it is clearly preferable where possible to pay NCIP to the handicapped child.
I hope that that explanation, complex though it is, will be acceptable and satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 30, line 6, leave out "47" and insert "48".

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment which seeks to alter a paragraph number to bring the Bill into line with changes made in the Social Security Pensions Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

HOUSING FINANCE (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

RECOVERY OF CERTIFIED AMOUNTS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 34, leave out from "at" to end of line 35 and insert "the appropriate rate".

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we are to take Lords amendment No. 3.

Mr. Armstrong: These amendments were made to correct a practical difficulty over the commencement of the recovery period. It was pointed out to us by the Association of District Councils that if a rent loss certificate became effective late in a financial year, it would be difficult to collect the required amount during the ensuing year. Four weeks' notice is required for rent increases, many of which are made in April, and rates are also fixed some time before the commencement of the financial year.
Although it would be possible to defer a rent increase or levy a supplementary


rate, these courses would be most unwelcome to local authorities.
Accordingly the amendments lift the requirements to collect one-fifth of the certified loss in the first recovery year in cases where a rent loss certificate becomes effective in February or March. The amendments do not, on the other hand, affect the requirement that the whole amount should normally be recovered within a total of five years.
We are grateful to the Association of District Councils, which drew this defect in the Bill to our attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, page 2, in line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
( ) A council shall perform their duty under this section by a general increase of the rents of those of their housing revenue account dwellings in the part or parts of their area to which the certificate relates; and a council may make any such increase notwithstanding section 111 of the Housing Act 1957 (charges for local authority's houses).

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of this amendment would be to restrict the freedom of local authorities to recoup the amount of a rent loss certificate by means of a rent increase over the whole of their areas if they so wish.
We have said on many occasions that it is the responsibility of the local authorities to recover this money locally. We have absolute confidence that they will do so by the method most appropriate for their own area. Only the local authorities can consider all the circumstances prevailing within their areas.
Opposition Members seem continually to forget that local authorities are elected democratically. They represent all their constituents and are well aware that their decisions have electoral consequences.
In our view, decisions affecting local people must, as far as possible, be made locally, and this Bill is essentially about local matters. That is why we have drafted it to give local authorities as much choice as possible.
The Opposition may talk a great deal about their respect for local government,

but the amendment illustrates the shallowness of much of what the Opposition say. To vote for the amendment would be to vote against the responsibility and freedom of local authorities to settle their own problems in the way most appropriate for their own areas. I must therefore ask the House to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Raison: The arguments of the Under-Secretary of State on this clause are rather pathetic. The effect of the amendment is to confine the burden which might fall on rent payers of making up the moneys not collected by the offending councils in the new enlarged authorities to those in the areas which benefited from non-implementation.
To take the familiar example of Clay Cross and North-East Derbyshire, we believe that, if the full burden is to fall on rent payers, it should only be on those rent payers who benefited from the failure to implement the Housing Finance Act.
It is nonsensical to present our point of view and that of their Lordships as an attempt to restrict the freedom of local authorities. The point is a very simple one, and I put this to Labour Members as to anyone else. Why on earth should council tenants, in the areas which derived no benefit, be liable, if their council so wishes, to bear this particular burden?
The Government have throughout our proceedings totally failed to meet this case. They failed to do so in Committee and on Report, and the Under-Secretary of State has failed to do so again tonight.
The essential fact of the matter is this. The Secretary of State said in his statement on 6th November 1974 that the aim was to recover money from non-implementation from communities which benefited from later implementation. In other words, the Secretary of State said that the burden now is to fall on those communities which benefited.
I cannot see by any stretch of the imagination how it can be argued that the citizens of North-East Derbyshire, for example, outside the Clay Cross area, benefited in any way from the failure to implement the Housing Finance Act. How can it possibly be the case that those in the areas which at that time were in quite different local authorities can be


said to have benefited from this particular failure?
It really is the most blatant nonsense, and makes mockery, apart from anything else, of the Labour Party's claim to have the interests of council tenants at heart, and I ask the House to support the Lords amendment.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is very strange that the Under-Secretary of State should produce this rather worn piece of paper which Departments seem to put into those red files whenever there is something for which they need to find a tawdry argument.
The Under-Secretary says that this interferes with the freedom of local authorities. We have seen it used before. We have noticed how it is kept on one side and is not brought out when the Government are in a difficult position. We have seen it used by different Governments and left aside by different Governments, but its bearing on the question is negligible, as the Under-Secretary knows well.
It was people in Clay Cross who benefited from the actions which were taken, and who were the occasion for all this, and it is they who must surely bear the burden when there is a burden to be borne. The wider community of which Clay Cross is now part did not elect the Clay Cross council, and none of the defences put forward applies to the wider area of which Clay Cross is now part. It did not benefit from any of the decisions taken by the Clay Cross council. There is no reason why the costs should be visited upon the ratepayers of that wider area. Nor is there any reason why this House should allow them to.
The Secretary of State has made several references to wiping the slate clean. Many of us doubt whether a piece of legislation of this kind could do that and would not have consequences extending far beyond our discussions today. But it will be much more difficult to wipe the slate clean if we visit upon other areas the consequences of what was done in the smaller Clay Cross area. How can we tell the ratepayers of the other parts of North-East Derbyshire that by footing the bill they will be helping to wipe the slate clean and to rid our history books of this unfortunate episode?

How can we tell the ratepayers that they must foot the bill because it is the law of the land and these matters must be respected? The context of this legislation makes it more difficult to advance that argument. We shall try to do so, but we are undermined in doing so by legislation of which this is part. The notion that the slate can be wiped clean by asking other people to pay the bill is absurd.
The whole job must be done by Parliament. Parliament must make it clear that, rather than the ratepayers of the whole Derbyshire district, it is the rent payers who benefited who must foot the bill. Responsibility must be kept where it belongs—first with the councillors responsible and then with those who benefited directly from their actions. Without this amendment, I do not see how that can be done.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The concept of wiping the slate clean will now be seen by the wider population to mean wiping it clean on behalf of the Labour Party, despite the great suffering it will create for a large number of ratepayers and others in the area who were not affected by the decision taken by the Clay Cross councillors.
That is not the only example of "double think" which this amendment brings to mind. Time and time again we have heard Labour spokesmen say that there is great outrage and bitterness in the country that this terrible thing should be visited upon the Clay Cross councillors, who are as white as driven snow, and the 400 other councillors who have deliberately refused to obey the law. But the outrage and bitterness is not all on one side, and Government supporters would be deluding themselves if they thought that they had a monopoly of the ill-feeling that this legislation has engendered.
There will be much bitterness and outrage in those parts of the country which will have to pay for the mismanagement and deliberately wilful acts of these councillors. So, whether it is because the Government are wiping the slate clean or because they feel that they have a monopoly of outrage and bitterness, the country will see that there is nothing in the arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have a purely party political bias which says


"Let anyone else suffer, but let us hold the Labour Party together".
It is for that reason that the Opposition, and I hope, some Government supporters, will accept this Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes, 263.

[For Division List No. 321 see col. 195]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 19, after "account of" insert "(a)".

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Armstrong]—put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 21, at end insert—
; and
(b) any sum or sums which the court may order to be paid to that council".

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Armstrong]—put and agreed to.

Clause 3

POWER TO CHARGE RATES

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 3, line 22, leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that it will be convenient to the House if with this amendment we take Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Armstrong: The purpose of these amendments is to prevent a council from recouping any part of its rent loss by means of charges to the rates. They illustrate once again the fundamental lack of confidence which the Opposition place in local authorities. The Opposition are constantly

wanting to instruct local authorities about their procedure.
As it left this House, the Bill presented those local authorities to which a rent loss certificate was issued with clear options. They could recover their losses by means of rent increases, over their whole area or over the defaulting area only, or they could charge all or part of the amount to the rates, with a similar opportunity to restrict the increases to the defaulting area only. There was also a clear provision to ensure that a decision to charge any amount to the rates could only be made after the most thorough consideration. Such a decision had to be taken at a meeting of the full council, with publicity to ensure that ratepayers were aware of the purpose of the meeting.
We cannot be aware of all the particular circumstances which may pertain in each of the local authorities involved. That is why we have made their options as wide as possible. We have complete confidence that councils will make the right decisions for their own areas. The policy attaching to these amendments would be a total negation of that confidence.
Local councillors are the elected representatives of their ratepayers. Ratepayers who disapprove of their council's policy have the opportunity to show their disapproval in the polling booth. Similarly ratepayers of the new area are not powerless should a council decide to make rate increases over the new area. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made this very point during Standing Committee. Any council which decided to charge all or part of the amount to the rates would be fully aware of the possible electoral consequences of that decision.
9.45 p.m.
It is also likely that without this Bill a large proportion of councils' losses might well have fallen on the rates anyway. Since the means of the councillors concerned are limited, their debts, for the great part, would probably have had to be written off with a consequent burden on the rates. The aim of the Government is to extend local authorities' options so that they can make the appropriate increases for their own area. I ask the House to vote for confidence in local authorities by rejecting these amendments and also to


approve the two amendments to Clause 3 which have the effect of bringing the rates option into line with the rent option in Clause 2. They provide a similar relaxation to Lords amendments No. 2 and No. 3 which we have already approved. Where a rent loss certificate becomes effective in February or March, a council will be released from the obligation to recover one-fifth of the amount during the first year. These amendments were approved in another place before it so unwisely rejected the whole clause.

Mr. Percival: I agree with the Minister on one thing. If his motion is carried, the amendments in lieu should also be carried in order to introduce consistency. But that is the limit of the area in which I can agree with him.
I hope the Minister will not mind my saying that he has just made another really pathetic speech and there has now been a series of them. I do not think he even realised what the amendment is about. He says we are constantly telling local authorities what to do, but this is not an amendment dealing with charging rates over a limited area. With the clause out of the Bill, local authorities have no power to put this loss on the rates. Our position has always been that there is no reason to charge ratepayers who got no benefit from their councils' actions any of the sums necessary to make good the losses.
I am not going to take too much time, because this view has been expounded more than once. The Minister spoke about putting an end to bitterness and divisiveness, but does he not realise how bitterly ratepayers will resent being called upon to make good deficiencies from whose creation they derived no benefits?
Supposing North-East Derbyshire Council decided to levy a rate over the whole area to make good the very large deficiencies arising in Clay Cross.

Mr. Swain: It would mean one-third of a penny rate each year for five years. That is not a tremendous amount of money.

Mr. Percival: That is totally irrelevant. Some people object to doing things on principle. I thought that is what the hon. Member was saying to justify the actions of his friends.
I just heard the Minister say sotto voce "We have heard it five times before". Yes, we have, but we have not yet had an answer. Let us try once more. It only requires a single-word reply, "Yes" or "No". The Minister can even say it sitting down; we will not complain. Supposing North-East Derbyshire Council decided to raise the sum by levying a rate and a ratepayer objected on principle to having to pay any part of that loss, however small. Is that person to be taken to court and subjected to the full rigours of the law or is he also to be excused? Can we have a "Yes" or a "No" from the Minister? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Armstrong: As I have said, they will exercise their democratic rights at the next election.

Mr. Carlisle: The Under-Secretary cannot get away with that. What democratic rights does the ratepayer have at any election in the circumstances envisaged by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)?
We are told that a third of a penny rate is involved. For a house with a rateable value of £300, that amounts to £1. Let us suppose that a person chooses to pay his rates but on principle deliberately withholds £1. Will the council in North-East Derbyshire take him to court and obtain a distress summons for the £1? That is the question which the Under-Secretary has not answered. As power is taken in the Bill to absolve from penalty people who choose not to carry out the law, on what basis could action be taken against a person who chose to withhold his £1?

Mr. Weitzman: The Opposition wanted the full rigour of the law to operate with regard to Clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof, to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 3, line 33, leave out from 'in' to end of line 34 and insert 'appropriate annual portions'.

In page 3, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (1) above "appropriate annual portions" means annual portions each of which is not less than one-fifth of the sum charged to the general rate fund, except that, if the effective date of the rent loss certificate falls in February or March, the council shall not be obliged to charge any amount in


respect of the year commencing on the 1st April following the effective date'—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 4

TERMINATION OF DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT HOUSING FINANCE ACT 1972.

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 3, line 38, leave out Clause 4.

Mr. Crosland: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 4 was the clause which lifted the disqualification from the only councillors who had actually been disqualified for their failure to implement the Housing Finance Act, namely, those at Clay Cross. They alone had suffered an extraordinary audit, and in their case alone had the district auditor completed his proceedings. On grounds of consistency it seems to us right to lift the disqualification here, in the same way as the Bill removes the threat of it elsewhere.
Since we debated this matter on Report the situation has altered. The same Clay Cross councillors and some others were surcharged in April for about £50,000 on account of matters wholly unconnected with the Housing Finance Act. But they had the right of appeal. At the time of the Report stage on 14th May we still did not know if they intended to exercise that right of appeal. So in defending Clause 4 on Report, I made it clear that I did not want in any way to prejudice any appeal which these councillors might make against this second surcharge.
On 28th May, after the Report stage in this House, the six-weeks' time-limit for an appeal against the new surcharge ran out. The 11 councillors concerned decided not to appeal, and my expert legal advice is that there is now no practical possibility of their finding a way of upsetting the surcharges in the court. That means that they are disqualified for a further five years, and Clause 4 becomes of nil effect. The new disqualification will outrun the original disqualification by about 18 months.
So Clause 4 is now what the lawyers call otiose. If we restored it to the Bill, it would have no practical effect. As far

as the Government are concerned, therefore, it makes no practical difference whether the clause is restored to the Bill or not. The matter has become one on which individuals make up their minds on quite different grounds. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that the decision on how this side of the House should vote would be taken freely after a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
After serious debate last Wednesday—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford) rose—

Mr. Crosland: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman is making his first appearance for tonight. We are pleased to see him.
After serious debate last Wednesday, that meeting was swayed by two arguments. One was the argument about internal consistency deployed by my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place.
Secondly, although the clause will not allow the Clay Cross councillors to stand again for office until the period of their second disqualification has expired, there was thought to be advantage in making it explicit for what reason they are now disqualified—that is, the legislation should provide that they are not disqualified for what took place under the Housing Finance Act.
I therefore ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. Raison: Having heard that speech, I honestly do not know whether to laugh or cry. As the House knows, the issue before us is simple: should the disqualification of the Clay Cross councillors stand? As we know, that issue has now become purely one of principle—or, rather, abandonment of principle. The Secretary of State told us that the Clay Cross councillors concerned have subsequently been resurcharged and are disqualified for events unrelated to the Housing Finance Act, and this clause, in his words, has become otiose. I put it to him that it still has consequences far greater than he suggests.
Clause 4 was deleted in the other place on a "stand part" vote by 148 to 41. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise


that by any standards the turn-out of Labour peers in the other place was thin. Many appear to have abstained, and Baroness Burton of Coventry spoke and voted against the clause, saying that it was a wrong thing that the Lords were being asked to do.
The Secretary of State knows full well that this is a wrong thing that the House of Commons is now being asked to do. One is tempted to say that it is farcical—we know that it has no practical effect—but it is worse than farcical. It is contemptible.
We know that the Secretary of State wished to drop the clause but, on his own admission now, the matter was put before the Parliamentary Labour Party to decide. What an astonishing insult to our Parliamentary system. [Interruption.] I can state categorically that we on this side have never behaved in this way. I assure hon. Members opposite who are laughing that, when the vote comes, they will see that not all their colleagues are happy with what they are doing tonight. It is a contemptible action.
Why did the Secretary of State agree to this matter being put to the Parliamentary Labour Party? Why did he not have the guts to take his own decision? The only matter throughout all these proceedings on which the Secretary of State has taken a stand on principle was the decision not to remit the original £7,000 surcharge. But this, too, is a weird story. After over a year's delay, the writs on the councillors have now been pressed and bankruptcy proceedings are apparently under way. We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State what has happened to the famous Labour Party fund to pay this money off.
In his statement on 4th April 1974 the Prime Minister indicated that the Labour Party was to consider how to raise the money. In Committee the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said:
I understand that steps are being taken to raise the £7,000, even though it is not yet finally available. From what I understand, I would certainly expect it to be forthcoming in the not too distant future."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24th April 1975; c. 278.]

Mrs. Jeger: As a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party,

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the only appeal which we have made was for money to pay legal expenses. The Labour Party has never asked for any fund to deal with the situation otherwise. The only appeal has been for legal expenses.

Mr. Raison: That is contrary to the impression given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.
On 14th May the Secretary of State said, on Third Reading, that he understood that this money was likely to be available fairly soon. In the event, apparently nothing was raised. The money was not paid off, and the Labour Party was not able to raise this paltry sum of money in support of the Clay Cross councillors.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

HOUSING FINANCE (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Raison: The question is, why should these councillors, who defied the law so deliberately and outrageously, be totally relieved of the stigma of disqualification? I say "stigma", as the penalty is incurred as a result of their actions on other occasions. Why should Parliament be asked utterly unnecessarily to go out of its way to condone these actions which have been condemned so vehemently on all sides?
We have heard the words of Lord Denning on a number of occasions. I shall not repeat them all. However, I remind the House of what he said about the Clay Cross councillors. He said:
Each of them deliberately broke the solemn promise which he gave when he accepted office. Each of them has flagrantly defied the law. Each of them is determined to continue to defy it.


Later he said:
They were not fit to be councillors. The sooner they were disqualified the better.
That was a judgment in a court of law, which the Government seek to overturn. That is the force of our case against that attempt.
There is only one reason why we are being asked to restore Clause 4. That reason is as contemptible and evil an example of placing party above principle as anyone could imagine. The truth is that the Secretary of State is bowing feebly to the thugs on his back benches.
All Members of Parliament will recognise that to have submitted this decision to the Parliamentary Labour Party in the way in which the Secretary of State did was a disgraceful piece of weakness. To have argued in the Parliamentary Labour Party in the terms which he used was utterly deplorable.
It is essential for the rule of law that the House should reject the Government's proposal and uphold the amendment proposed in the other place.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I much regret that the Secretary of State should find himself bound to move the rejection of the Lords amendment and to ask that Clause 4, which caused so much controversy, should be replaced.
All who have worked with the Secretary of State know that no Minister stands more strongly and firmly for the rule of law or is more opposed to all breaches of law under any circumstances. Therefore, it is a great pity—about which many of us feel strongly—that it should fall on his shoulders to ask us to reject the Lords amendments and to restore Clause 4 to the Bill.
The meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party to which he referred—only half the Members were present—did not accept his advice or his strongly held views, and insisted that the clause should remain in the Bill,
The matter arose on previous occasions. A number of us felt keenly about it and contemplated voting against the Government and with the Opposition, in spite of the three-line Whip, when we dealt with the matter on Report. There were others who held the same views but did not feel quite so strongly as we did. We were

worried as a result of the explanation given by the Secretary of State, who clearly disliked Clause 4 as much as we did. It violated many of the principles we held in common. However, he produced this persuasive argument. He said that it was necessary for Parliament, when considering legislation of this kind, to provide equality for all the people involved. Under the Bill the disqualification of those 400 people was automatically removed. It would, therefore, be grossly unfair if the Clay Cross councillors did not have the same benefit and if some remained disqualified while the disqualification of all the rest was removed. That is the argument he put forward in the House, and it is a strong one. It did not convince us all, but it was a plausible argument.
Since then the situation has changed completely, as my right hon. Friend said. The equality argument is dead.
The only other argument which has been advanced by my right hon. Friend and one or two Opposition Members is that it does not matter now. The Clay Cross councillors will not suffer, their disqualification operates automatically, therefore, it does not matter whether Clause 4 remains in the Bill. They ask: why all the fuss? I cannot accept that point of view. What Parliament does in this matter is of great consequence. Although it does not affect the 11 Clay Cross councillors, it affects public opinion and the reputation of the House.
We are being asked to say that when a group of people—whether they be councillors, business people, individuals or whoever they are—have violated a law of Parliament defiantly and purposely, the House should forget that defiance, take no notice of it and restore to them every right they had before, and that they should be in no way disadvantaged for violating the laws of Parliament.
I have always believed—and I have accepted the view of my hon. Friends here—that these councillors acted with integrity, honesty and a deep feeling that what they were doing was right in the interests of their constituents. But they have said more than once—and this is their faith which they repeated after this Clay Cross trouble was over—that they do not recognise the law of Parliament. The only law they recognise is what they


believe to be the interests of the working people they represent. They may be right. Maybe they know better than we do what is in the interests of the people they represent, but that does not make them fit and proper people to sit on local government with our blessing. People who start by saying that they will ignore the laws we have passed and will not put them into operation, by definition should not be allowed to sit on local government, because if they do it makes local government undemocratic and parliamentary responsibility in public affairs comes to an end.
Therefore, it is essential that the House should say that the disqualification of those people should remain, not that it makes any difference to them because they are disqualified anyhow in respect of later offences. But the removal of the disqualification would be a gesture of support and appeasement to their point of view, and we should not do it.
Everyone here who believes in the supremacy of Parliament and carrying out the laws which Parliament passes—and everyone who believes in democracy must say that we cannot accept the Lords amendment. Whether or not it comes from the Lords does not matter. All that matters is whether it is wise, right and in the interests of parliamentary democracy in which we believe.

Mrs. Jeger: My right hon. Friend has not always been a supporter of the establishment. Will he not kindly allow that there might be other Socialist democratic opinion which does not go along with supporting an amendment to the Bill by a non-elected House of Lords?

Mr. Strauss: It is not a question of supporting a non-elected House of Lords. We are concerned with supporting a decision made by one of the Houses of Parliament. Decisions made in the other House are often the result of an initiative from the Labour Party. Labour peers have often proposed amendments which are accepted by this House. What we have to consider is the merits of the case. It does not matter where a proposal comes from. The question is whether it is right or wrong.
I say that it is wholly wrong that a disqualification imposed on these people should be removed as a gesture. This is

a significant matter. It may not affect those involved, but millions of people who are not associated closely or even at all with any political party feel deeply that the rule of law is important and must be safeguarded in all circumstances.

Mr. Lee: I am following the way my right hon. Friend's argument is developing. I repeat to him an argument that I put to the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). It is sometimes expedient to disregard breaches of the law. An example is that of Rhodesia, for otherwise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not have met Mr. Ian Smith quite frequently.

Mr. Strauss: If we try to argue this matter on the ground of what has happened in Rhodesia, we get nowhere. This is a simple issue of the law affecting the land of our people—a law imposed on members of local authorities who gave their pledge that they would support it. They have not done so.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are those on this side of the House who do not see as synonymous with upholding the rule of law any question of upholding either the establishment or anyone else, but see it as based on democratic government elected on the basis of adult universal suffrage, as this Government have been.

Mr. Strauss: Hon. Members have said that there have been occasions when it has been desirable for people—trade unionists and others—to disobey against the laws of the country. That is true. But they were occasions before universal suffrage and when Parliament was composed of a small clique of wealthy and prosperous people.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that the application of the law is, to say the least, distinctly patchy? Would he take this attitude towards employers who constantly break safety laws?

Mr. Strauss: I am not sure what the relevance of that intervention is. But I am in favour of the prosecution of anyone who breaks any law.
Millions of people care about this sort of thing. They really believe in Parliament and the rule of law by Parliament.


They want that rule of law sustained. They do not want to see anything happen which looks like a breach of the law taking place as a result of political propaganda, the activities of small groups in a particular party, or public clamour. That is what has happened in this case.

The House should uphold the rule of law and Parliament. It should accept the Lords' amendment, and I believe, judging by his previous activities and the views he has constantly expressed, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deep in his heart would like to accept it too.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Swain: I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) since 1945. Sometimes I have respected his views, and on other occasions I have treated his views with less respect. This is one occasion on which I take the latter view.
This matter requires some repetition of history affecting the case. I shall not indulge in tedious repetition because I am not a lawyer—[Interruption.] If you interrupt me, I shall thump you. I do not mean that in a physical sense. Let us get back to the serious point—namely, that when the Conservatives saw fit to put before the House legislation on council house rents, a number of authorities, even before that legislation was enacted, said that they would not implement it.
As a result a meeting was held in Sheffield at which 98 authorities were represented. In the chair was Sir Ronald Ironmonger, the then leader of the Sheffield City Council. A unanimous resolution was passed at that meeting to the effect that all 98 authorities would refuse to implement the Housing Finance Act. The Bill received Royal Assent and one by one the 98 authorities were picked upon. Clay Cross and a few other authorities saw fit to notify the Minister. They were honest authorities and they notified the Minister by letter that in no circumstances would they implement the legislation.
Section 95 of the Housing Finance Act dealt with the appointment of a housing commissioner. We have all no doubt read about, if not read for ourselves, the proceedings in the Standing Committee on the Housing Finance Bill. Although I was not a member of the Committee I spent more time in that Committee room than many Tories, who found themselves in an adjoining Committee room for a good deal of the time enjoying quantities of John Haig and other types of refreshment. Section 95 of the Housing Finance Act gave the Minister power to appoint a commissioner, and at no time was the Minister in any doubt about the intentions of Clay Cross.
In the event Clay Cross did not implement the provisions of the Act, nor did

several other authorities, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). As a result the Minister concerned did not send in a housing commissioner as he had been begged to do. A letter was sent to the Minister suggesting that if he were to send in a commissioner the Clay Cross councillors would not interfere in the carrying out of his duties. The only fiscal penalty in that legislation involved a sum of £400 in respect of each individual who sought to interfere with the carrying out of the auditor's duties. The Clay Cross councillors pledged themselves not to interfere with the commissioner's duties. The Minister gave the defaulting authorities until 1st January to implement the Act. Three days after the receipt of the letter, even before the Labour group on the council had a chance to consider the letter, the auditor was sent in to audit the books under Section 237 of the Local Government Act 1933.
To put the matter bluntly, the Minister at that time went "round the corner" when it came to the rule of law. The Government had gone to all that trouble to get Section 95 on the statute book, yet they refused to implement it when there was opposition from the Labour Party. There were five and a half months in which the Government imposed a guillotine. Six weeks afterwards they sent Mr. Tracy, the auditor. I had the task of defending the council. After listening carefully and patiently to all the arguments for and against, the auditor decided to surcharge. It says very explicitly in the 1933 Act that a surcharge means automatic disqualification. Those are the historic facts.
The council was then advised by one of the most reputable firms in the country—I shall not name it because that would be commercial—that it had grounds of appeal in the sense that the Minister had acted punitively. That was a technical legal point. It went through the process of law to the Divisional Court and then to Lord Denning in the Appeal Court. Up to that point it had made no mistakes. Lord Denning gave his judgment on 5th October that year, and from that day those lads and lasses were automatically disqualified under the Local Government


Act 1933. However, at the same time the Minister could have drawn rents from Clay Cross, had he accepted my advice and that of the Clay Cross councillors and sent in the commissioner the moment the letter of intent was written. The letter was an honest-to-goodness declaration of intent.
I turn to the question of party before anything else. I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman who was then selected as Prime Minister and who has now gone to the other place—namely Lord Home of the Hirsel—at his first conference after being elected said "Every word we say and every action we take from now on must be in the interests of winning the next General Election". Was that partisan politics? Was that a speech in the interests of politics? Was it a speech in the interests of democracy? If hon. Members want any more history, we can give it to them. [Interruption.] Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have some political hairs on my chest and they are not getting grey.
At no time since 5th October of that year have the Clay Cross councillors made any representation to me, as their Member of Parliament, and I am in Clay Cross every week without a miss. [Interruption.] I take my wife with me, not somebody else's wife. The News of the World is full of Tories. At no time have the Clay Cross councillors made any approaches to me or to my right hon. Friend for help or assistance in this matter. The resolution of the conference was carried by a large majority. That was the will of the Labour Party speaking at its conference. [Interruption.] It was not a block vote or a manoeuvred vote through the Stock Exchange.
It has been said tonight that the Clay Cross councillors have nothing to gain because they are already disqualified for another offence. Anyone who has looked up case law will have discovered that 181 people have been granted full pardon, having completed their full sentence, and 63 of them have subsequently committed another offence and been resentenced. That is exactly what my friends at Clay Cross have done. They are at present surcharged for new offences which have no relation to the Housing Finance Act, as my right hon. Friend categorically stated in his opening remarks.
I therefore suggest that my right hon. Friend was not the captain of the Labour Party last Wednesday night. If the Labour Party spoke more often as it did last Wednesday night, we would have a better Government. He should ask those lads opposite who are captives of the 1922 Committee. He should ask Ted Heath who was captive of the 1922 Committee—I am sorry for that slight error; I meant the right hon. Member for Cowes, of course.

Mr. Stephen Ross: On a point of order. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) happens to be at Cowes at present, but he is not the Member for Cowes. I happen to be the Member for the whole of the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Swain: I ask the House to support my right hon. Friend in his appeal to the House to reject the Lords amendment. That would be democratic. The decision to do so was reached democratically at the Parliamentary Labour Party. The decision was reached by an undemocratically appointed body in the House of Lords. The House tonight has carried Government proposals, admittedly not with large majorities. I quote the late Winston Churchill, one of whose most famous sayings was:
A majority of one is the best repartee.
If we have a majority of one, I personally and the Clay Cross councillors will be highly delighted.

Mr. Lawrence: I am sorry that at this stage we have been treated to a speech of humour, because I find it rather difficult to treat the subject with any sense of fun. I know that those in my constituency and those who support the stand that this side of the House has taken throughout the long period of the passage of the Bill will feel the same way.
I find it difficult to reconcile the fine-sounding words with which the Secretary of State began this series of debates, in a speech saying that he upheld the rule of law, with the words he used when he sat down having just opposed an amendment which would delete Clause 4. The country will find it hard to reconcile the Secretary of State's pretence of high-mindedness and denial by implication of the political pressure to which he is giving way with the reality.
I want to take the opportunity of reminding hon. Members at this late hour of what it is that the Government are kowtowing to. I refer them to the terms of conference resolution No. 191 passed on 3rd October 1973:
This Conference deplores the lack of initiative shown by the National Executive Committee in failing to defend the Clay Cross Council in its fight against the Housing Finance Act. Conference urges NEC to take all possible steps to defend the interests of the councillors and to intensify the national struggle against this iniquitous legislation.
Conference further agrees that upon the election of a Labour Government all penalties, financial or otherwise, should be removed retrospectively from councillors who have courageously refused to implement the Housing Finance Act.
That is what all this is about—not some of the rubbish that we have been treated to tonight and all the way through the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
I find it difficult to understand how the Secretary of State could, even this evening, pretend by implication that there were not political pressures when only four days ago, at a meeting of the Labour Party, in response to the pressures placed upon him, he is reported to have explained why it was necessary to oppose the stand which we on the Conservative side are taking. According to the Daily Telegraph—[HON. MEMBERS: "It must be right."] I cannot help it if the Government make sure that there are informed leaks. The Secretary of State is reported as having said:
We should be forced into a series of by-elections on grounds of our opponents' choosing and some of the best Labour-controlled local authorities in the country would be decimated in the process.
That is the merest and the purest of party political justifications for the stand that the Government are taking against the interests of the people of this country. If Labour Members do not accept the accuracy of that report, I invite the Secretary of State to repudiate that he said those words at that meeting.
Why do not the Government come clean with the House and admit honestly and frankly that this legislation is being introduced, and held on to through hell and high water, not because it is fair or just or because it is reasonable or even defensible but simply because

resolution 191 of the Labour Party Conference in 1973 has ordered them to do it?
Has this once great political party come so low that it has to jump to the demands of a block-vote, extremist-dominated conference, however unjustified those demands may be? Are there not more than a mere handful of Labour Members who will stand up for the rule of law? Are there not some Labour Members who are thoroughly ashamed that representatives of their Government should have encouraged the Clay Cross councillors to defy the law, on a promise of absolution on the return of a Labour Government? Are there only the very few who will feel ashamed and will show that shame by being courageous and coming with us into the Lobby against that which is so plainly wrong?
We have heard little during the course of these debates, both here and in Committee, other than double-think and double-talk. Those who seek to uphold the rule of law on this side of the House and the integrity of local authorities have this evening been accused of being cynical. Those who are defending the law-abiding citizens of this country, and who treat this legislation with seriousness and with disgust, are being accused of arousing bitterness and outrage.
The martyrs for Socialism who stand on the Government side are the first to ensure that it is not they who have to make the sacrifice. We note that there has not yet been a whip-round in the Labour Party. It is the innocent ratepayers from areas outside Clay Cross who will have to pay and who will suffer from the blow struck to the rule of law by this Government's action.
This Bill offends—and seriously offends—not only the law-abiding citizen but the standing of Parliament itself. We on the Conservative side can only hope that, by the Government's continuing attempt to make a virtue of what has been nothing less than political corruption, moderate supporters of the Labour Party will be so offended that when the time comes for Government to face the electorate they will be routed.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I want to congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), on a brave speech. I enjoyed it very


much. It is a matter for reflection, I think, that on the very day that Indira Gandhi introduces retrospective legislation into the Indian Parliament, we are asked to agree to the same here.
I ask Government supporters who are thinking of supporting their right hon. and hon. Friends to remember the position into which these councillors—not just the Clay Cross councillors; there are 400 of them—put their chief officers. They put their officers in an impossible position, and they should not be reinstated. That is a view which I have held consistently, and I shall support the Lords amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: I make no apology for taking up a little more time, because there are one or two things which have still not been said.
I am one of the back-bench thugs who pressurised the Secretary of State into taking the line that he did tonight. Certainly I shall support the Government tonight, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip may be surprised to hear, despite the fact that I am not always in that position. I do so not because I am instructed by my party conference or by the parliamentary party. I do so because I think that this is right in the circumstances.
Listening to this debate, one would think that there was political consideration in this matter only on the Government benches and that the Opposition were not taking politics into account. We have our political considerations. The Opposition have purer political considerations. It infuriates me that Opposition Members, who raised no objection when illegal actions were committed and when the Minister, now the Chairman of the Conservative Party, Lord Carrington—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well, the former Chairman of the Conservative Party. But he was not passed on for this reason. He was the responsible Minister when illegal actions were committed under the former Conservative Government. They were actions so clearly illegal which had such financial consequences that in the Estimates passing through Parliament this year an amount totalling £100,000 is paid in compensation for the illegal torture

conducted in Northern Ireland when Lord Carrington was the responsible Minister constitutionally in charge. However, I should be out of order if I went on about that.
There is a great difference, apparently, between when a Minister is responsible for illegal actions and when a councillor is responsible for illegal actions. But if we have the same rules, there is no doubt that the Minister would be surchargeable for the illegal actions done under his control.

Mr. Lee: It goes even further than that. The Minister responsible for the Hola camp when these matters were being considered—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Hola camp is a long way from our argument.

Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is determined to get us into Africa tonight one way or the other. But I shall not take up his point.
I am glad that the responsibility in this matter of the former Minister of Housing, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), has been mentioned. It is that aspect of the affair which convinces me that the Government should be supported in what they propose. This was a matter of shared responsibility. The legal responsibility for breaking the law belonged to the councillors. But the extent of the surcharge was attributable entirely to the former Minister of Housing. He could have stopped it. He was given powers by the House for the sole reason of stopping it, in order to ensure that a cost which could not possibly be shifted on to the councillors did not fall upon public funds. That is why Parliament gave him those powers. He refused to exercise them.
In another case recently Lord Denning has established a new doctrine in the matter of shared responsibility and contributory negligence. It is conceivable that if the question of the then Minister's responsibility in the matter had reached Lord Denning, he would have held that there was contributory negligence by the right hon. Gentleman. It is because there was contributory negligence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to vote for the compromise that we are putting through the House.

Mr. Julian Amery: We went to great lengths to make it clear not only to the Clay Cross council but to all councils—the 98 to which one hon. Member referred—that there was no way in which, under our existing constitution and under the law, they could free themselves of the responsibility to carry out the orders of Parliament. That being the case, there was no way in which they could default without incurring the penalties that went with the default. They were not acting in the dark. The situation was made perfectly clear to them several weeks in advance of the final decision.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that the 98 councils, or however many there were, had had it made abundantly clear to them at the time of their action that there was no other way than to observe the law as laid down in the Housing Finance Act. What he did not tell the House, but what most hon. Members know already, is that in that Act he laid down two or three different ways in which it could be implemented.
The former Secretary of State for Wales decided that perhaps there was a better, less primitive way of obtaining the required rents from certain councils in Wales. It came as no surprise to me that in Merthyr Tydfil, after a relatively short rebellion, and in Bedwas and Machen, after a similar rebellion by a small council not dissimilar to Clay Cross, a housing commissioner was sent in under Section 95 to ensure that the Government's law was carried out to the extent of collecting the necessary £1 a week. There were those who rebelled in Scotland, under a slightly different Act but a similar principle.
The surprising feature was that the right hon. Gentleman and those superior to him decided on a punitive course against the Clay Cross councillors. He used a different method, that of sending in an auditor, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), who represents that area. An auditor was sent in to take punitive action.
It seemed clear to most of us that the auditor would easily find, as he did, the amount of rent that was owing. I have no doubt that if the same action had been taken in Wales and in many authorities

elsewhere, some of which are included in tonight's measures, any auditor doing a similar task would have found £X missing as a result of the non-collection of rent.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) should not get on his high horse about chief officers being put in an invidious position. The chief officer in Clay Cross was one of the rebels. He did not pay his rent for 80 weeks. Quite apart from being under duress, I am quite certain that that chief officer could have found ways and means of transmitting that £1 a week to the Treasury or to the Department of the Environment in order to make plain that he was not part of this protest.
10.45 p.m.
Let us not get the impression that as a result of the punitive action the Clay Cross people needed to be egged and urged on by anyone. The fact that they had been picked out for this extra-special treatment meant that the population of Clay Cross had delivered successive mandates of quite major kinds—72 per cent. turned out at the polls on one occasion—telling the 11 councillors and their successors "Carry on, we are behind you". When it becomes a question of the rule of law, we have to consider seriously whether the local population are right in the demands they are making upon their elected representatives.
I understand that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will abstain or, perhaps, vote in the Opposition Lobby tonight against the party decision of a few days ago. It is for them to make their choice [Interruption.] Yes, I have done it, but not in this precise fashion. This is the first time we have had a Parliamentary Labour Party vote while we have been in Government. I do not invite my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) to defy that democratic decision taken last Wednesday night. I suggest that he should, perhaps, consider the consistency of what he is doing.
One of my hon. Friends who intends to rebel said earlier that he wants consistency and, above all else, for the Clay Cross councillors to be treated exactly the same as the rest. That was his plea when he spoke to the first amendment


we discussed tonight. We have now reached the last amendment and my hon. Friend is suggesting that the threat of disqualification should be removed from those 400 councillors who went quite a long distance towards rebellion, some doing so unwittingly but others doing so in the same manner as those at Clay Cross but not going quite so far.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider the matter of consistency. If it is right for those 400 councillors—we have already passed the appropriate amendment—to be deprived of any disqualification, why not those 11 who were urged by successive Labour Party conferences and decisions to carry on their fight? I cannot remember, when the Housing Finance Bill was completing its passage through the House, anyone of any distinction saying especially to the Clay Cross councillors but also to the Camden councillors or any other councillors, "Do not do this. Do not do that. What are the consequences?" because at the 1973 Labour Party conference the motion was carried unanimously. I am quite certain that some small voice could have spoken at the rostrum on that occasion and made it clear that it was not a unanimous decision.
Another problem that the House has to consider tonight is the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the fact that there is now a subsequent surcharge is somewhat academic and it does not matter about Clause 4. That is not the case. Of course my right hon. Friend has a legal interpretation of that decision, but we all have legal interpretations. The fact that the second 10 have already appealed against that subsequent surcharge means that there is a possibility—in fact a probability—that the case can be opened for the first 11 in order to follow up with an appeal. Let no one imagine that it is purely academic.
We have constantly been told during this debate that the Government intend to rescue their friends. I remind the House that on a previous occasion when we were dealing with the parallel Bill relating to Scotland, we made clear not only by our actions—[Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to address the

House. We shall get along much more quickly if he is allowed to do so.

Mr. Skinner: We made clear in that measure, which had been decimated by Lords amendments just as this one has been, not only that we would absolve all the Labour councillors in Scotland from whatever penalties were incurred as a result of their rebellion but that we would remove the penalties applicable to the Scottish National Party, Jimmy Reid and all the other councillors who did not belong to the Labour Party.
We on this side of the House have a duty not merely to consider the amendments but also to take into account precisely the process through which the amendments have passed. We are debating in the main Lords amendments arising out of our decision on Report. On Report we came to a certain decision by 250 to 242, and it would be wrong of anybody to assume that since then we have adopted another position. When the Bill reaches the House of Lords the six-weeks' so-called appeal time arising out of the surcharge had been passed. So the position is exactly the same as it was when these Lords amendments were first contemplated.
I am on the side of the National Executive Committee. I am on the side—this time at any rate—of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and I am against the un-elected House of Lords in its attempt to thwart the decision of the House of Commons. I invite my hon. Friends to be consistent and to vote as they did on the previous occasion and give us a majority to wipe the slate clean.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 268.

[For Division List 332 see col. 199.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

RATES—SUPPLEMENTARY

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 4, line 41, leave subsection (3).

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Crosland], put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 5, line 6, leave out from "surcharge" to end of line 7.

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Crosland], put and agreed to.

Title

Lords amendment: No. 11, in line 5, leave out from "made;" to "and" in line 8.

Mr. Crosland: Mr. Crosland rose—

Hon. Members: Resign!

Mr. Crosland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a purely consequential amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Crosland, Sir M. Havers, Mr. Raison and Mr. Stoddart; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Crosland.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PETITION

Tidworth Hospital

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the Tidworth Hospital Action Group.
The petition showeth
That the petitioners call for the retention of full hospital facilities in Tidworth.
Wherefore your petitioners pray
That the Tidworth Hospital, at present operated as the Tidworth Military Hospital, should not be closed.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

This petition is signed by Mr. Donald Dickey of 15 Abbatt Close, Ludgershall, near Andover, Hampshire, and is signed by 5,839 constituents of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton).

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pendry.]

TOMATO GROWERS (ESSEX)

11.10 p.m.

Mr. John Wakeham: After the matters of high drama and principle which we have recently debated, I wish to refer to matters in the calmer waters of tomato growing in Essex.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter which is of vital importance to several of my constituents and which may be of much wider importance nationally. I refer to the damage caused to commercial tomato crops by the pollution of the public water supply and the apparent residual effects of pollution which occurred some two years ago. Not only is it causing a number of my constituents to face bankruptcy, but this problem lends wider emphasis to what the Minister of State, Department of the Environment recently called one of the great dilemmas of our time. I refer to the matter of water quality control.
It is clear that without more precise control of the chemicals that daily find their way into the water supply which we drink and use in our gardens, and which we use in industry and horticulture, we shall soon face a situation which increasingly will detrimentally affect not only the food chain but also the existence of the human population in this country. I say this well knowing that this is a time of tremendous pressure on public resources and public spending, but nevertheless I think that it is a matter of great importance.
The problem affecting my constituents first became apparent in March 1973 when unusual symptoms began to appear in the leaves of young tomato plants. The


Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was called in, together with the Essex River Authority, the National Farmers' Union and a firm of consultants, Douglas Gowan & Partners. Eventually it was determined that although other pollutants such as 2–4–D were also present in the water supply, the chemical known as TBA was responsible for the damage.
This chemical, a deep root weed killer, is manufactured by a well-known firm at Harston near Cambridge. Manufacturing residues were discharged under consent into the river system, and this level of TBA was added to by site seepage. The water from the receiving river was pumped down into Essex and distributed to the nurseries, and eventually damage was suffered on 52 horticultural holdings, the total damage being estimated in the region of £150,000. In addition to this the growers have suffered considerable additional expense in analytical investigation and in payment to professional advisers.
In April 1974 it was suggested that a relief fund should be established. As a result of that suggestion a fund was set up, and it was recently announced in the Press that the sum contributed by the authorities involved was £80,000 plus interest to the date of final distribution. It is a condition of payment from the fund that the grower concerned shall waive all legal rights to recovery of his losses by any other means. Although the fund is not in accord with the estimated actual losses, it is none the less clearly the objective of the contributing authorities to provide some substantial measure of relief. Although it is disappointing to learn that payment is not expected for some time, one must be grateful for the response so far shown. It is, however, disappointing that the fund is considered to be final.
In the early part of this year a number of growers were alarmed to see what was considered to be a recurrence of the symptoms suffered in 1973. Initial analysis has indicated that levels of TBA are present on at least four nurseries which have suffered damage. Two of those growers are currently facing the prospect of bankruptcy. The losses suffered this year by the four nurseries

are currently estimated to be about £25,000.
When advised of the further outbreak, the authorities began to carry out investigations. On 10th June the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advised one of my constituents in Latchingdon that there was sufficient TBA in his soil to cause distortion in tomato plants. Subsequently, lower but nevertheless material levels of TBA were found in the soils of other nurseries.
As a result of these findings, representations were made to the authorities as to the possibility of helping out growers who were in a desperate financial situation not only in terms of compensation but also in respect of specific advice as to what future they had, if any, in growing commercial crops on contaminated soil. The initial response from the authorities was extremely helpful, but on 15th June the firm concerned stated that it did not consider that the levels of TBA present in the soil correlated with the observed damage. It also suggested that various husbandry practices might have had an influence and that another chemical was present in the soil. One might find it surprising, if another chemical was present, that the firm did not indicate its name to the grower concerned.
On 29th July the Anglian Water Authority advised that the chemical concerned was Picloram, which is another herbicide used as a weed killer. Investigations have shown that that herbicide has never been used at any of the nurseries involved and that it is used in conjunction with 2–4–D, yet another of the herbicides used in daily life. It is interesting to note that 2–4–D was found at one of the affected nurseries in 1973, and at that time TBA was thought to be totally responsible for the damage suffered.
Some chemists also advise that Picloram would potentiate with TBA, or vice versa. Whatever the precise cause, the fact remains that it would appear that waterborne contaminants caused damage in 1973 and that effects were left—which may have been exacerbated since—which have produced further damage and taken good, honest, industrious growers to the point of bankruptcy.
As for the suggestions of bad husbandry, these could be answered in specific terms. It is alleged that one grower in particular used a tomset and that its improper use led to plant damage. It is quite clear that damage to three trusses on the damaged plants existed before the Ministry of Agriculture advised the grower concerned to use tomset, and in any event that advice was not followed.
One can have only the greatest sympathy with the attempts of manufacturing industry to control minute amounts of chemicals escaping into watercourses. One can have only the greatest sympathy with water authorities which have to control chemical substances capable of detection only by the most sophisticated methods. Notwithstanding that, my constituents have suffered grave damage and appear to be suffering further damage. It seems vital that some action to help the growers should be mounted immediately.
That action can be best defined under three headings: first, the setting up of a properly-integrated programme of research leading to the provision of good advice to growers; second, the provision of adequate compensation to the growers not only for the loss of revenue but also for the very heavy costs they have to bear; and third, the setting up of control procedures which will ensure the impossibility of a like event happening again. This must be coupled with an overall improvement of the water quality in Essex, which has been the subject of considerable criticism in past years.
I hope that the Government will consider most sympathetically the position of these growers, all of whom operate on a relatively small scale, and will be able to express that sympathy in some positive form.

11.21 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I open by expressing appreciation to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) not only for raising this matter on behalf of his constituents but for the reasonable and constructive way in which he has done so and for giving me adequate notice of the various points he wished to raise. I am sure he will appreciate that all these matters arose from happenings in 1973, which was not only before the

present Government took office but also before the water service of the country was reorganised.

Mr. Wakeham: Mr. Wakeham indicated assent.

Mr. Howell: I am glad the hon. Gentleman is in agreement. Nevertheless, I have tremendous sympathy with the plight of his constituents, although I must confess that I have had great difficulty in finding where ministerial responsibility lies. But I have done my best, and will continue to do so, to help the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman has said rightly, that the damage was attributed to the presence of a chemical known as TBA in the water supply. This is used in the manufacture of herbicide, and a quantity entered the river system from the factory and found its way into the water supply.
I emphasise that there was no medical risk from the concentrations found in the water; there was no risk to human beings, animals or fish. No other crop was affected. But tomato plants are peculiarly sensitive to this chemical, even in concentrations as low as one part in very many millions. That is the extraordinary set of circumstances which has led to these difficulties. Special measures were taken to arrest the discharge of this pollutant immediately it was discovered. Special measures have continued since to protect growers from any recurrence from this source.
I understand from the Anglian Water Authority that last October it and others concerned decided to set up the fund to which the hon. Gentleman has referred as a gesture of sympathy to the growers and to provide some measure of relief. The authority tells me that it has consulted and agreed with growers' representatives about terms for distributing the total sum of money contributed. The NFU has asked the growers whether they want to participate in the scheme, and some of their replies are still awaited.
It occurred to me that the hon. Gentleman, who has been so reasonable and constructive, could well have criticised the delay in the distribution of the fund and had he done so I would at first glance have had considerable sympathy with him. However, I am advised that not all the growers have stated yet whether they wish to participate in the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that my Department has no responsibility for the fund or for the arrangements made for distributing it, and I cannot therefore comment on particular points which might occur out of what is really the distribution of ex gratia payments.
Steps were taken to prevent a recurrence of the 1973 trouble. Effluent from the TBA manufacturing plant at the factory concerned has not been discharged into the river system since but has been tankered away for safe disposal. Daily samples of the remaining effluent from the factory are analysed for TBA. The water authority regularly monitors a number of different points in the river system for TBA. These are in the River Cam system, the Ely-Ouse system at Denver and at Black Dyke Farm. It has also completed a special sampling programme on Abberton and Hanningfield reservoirs. These special tests for TBA are in addition to the normal monitoring programme which tests for up to 45 different substances in the water.
This programme goes on throughout the whole of the water authority's area. As an example, the routine programme in Essex includes 14 separate sampling points on the River Stour downstream of the point where Ely-Ouse water enters it, and nine points on the River Pant and the non-tidal Blackwater below the Ely-Ouse entry.
This will give the House an indication of the constant and careful check maintained by water authorities on river water quality. Of course, numerous further checks are made as the water goes from river to treatment works and through the various processes before it is considered fit to enter the mains supply. The ultimate and continuous test is that the water should be safe and wholesome for domestic use.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that problems such as that which arose in Essex in 1973 are very difficult to anticipate. This happens because of the complex chemical nature of many effluents discharged to river systems, the very diverse uses to which water is put and the exceptionally low concentrations at which some substances can produce undesirable effects. For example the concentration of TBA, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, in water sufficient

to damage young tomato plants is close to the extreme limits of detection even with the most sophisticated methods of analysis.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the level of spending by water authorities in connection with water quality control. This, as with other spending, must be a matter for them to decide within available capital investment and the need to contain increases in charges in the interests of consumers. But am satisfied that water authorities are very well aware of their responsibilities for water quality which is central to their functions. They give full priority to the protection of water put into public supply.
I should like to comment on damage to tomato plants this year. The Anglian Water Authority has had two cases reported to it. The natural reaction was that the damage might have been caused by residual effects following the problems of 1973. The water authority immediately mounted a thorough programme to analyse soil samples from a number of nurseries in the area. I am glad to report that this is continuing. The results indicate that TBA is not the primary cause. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture advisory service, which has conducted its own tests has now modified its original view that TBA could, I think I am right in saying, have caused the difficulties. The information which the hon. Gentleman quoted about individual cases has now been revised by them in the light of further tests.
I can imagine that following the events of 1973 people in Essex have asked why they have to use water transferred to their area by the Ely-Essex Ouse system. The answer is that without the extra water from that source, the growing demand in Essex would exceed natural supplies. The major Ely-Essex Ouse scheme was undertaken to augment water in the Stour and Blackwater rivers and to enable increasing demand in Essex to be met until the mid-1980s.
Natural supplies of water are not, unfortunately for the water industry, distributed evenly throughout the country. The general tendency is obviously for heavy rainfall to take place in the West and to be much more plentiful there than in, say, Essex. It makes sense, therefore, to try to balance these resources. Water is


transferred from one river basin to another. On a smaller scale, transfers of water from the lower reaches of one river to the upper reaches of another as in the Ely-Essex Ouse scheme also make the maximum use of existing resources. If water which is running to waste can be transferred by river to an area of comparative shortage, the need for water storage can be reduced. Nobody wishes to use valuable land to build reservoirs if this can be avoided.
Increasingly in this country these processes of recycling and reusing water several times over in the river system and in transferring water from one part of the country where there is an area of plenty to an area where there is great shortage are likely to create difficulties to which the hon. Member has drawn our attention. The Department and the industry are paying close attention to them.
When dealing with chemicals where very minute quantities can adversely affect horticulture, as in this case, we must be continually on our guard to protect what is a legitimate industrial, farming or horticultural interest. It demands increased vigilance as we use and transfer water in this way.
The Government and the water authorities are fully apprised of the need for increased vigilance. I am glad to say that a good deal of research is going on into all aspects of water transfers. The Water Research Centre which carries out collective research for the industry is dealing with the problem of continuous monitoring to detect relatively large increases in organic pollutants. The centre is also carrying out research and development into ways of removing such substances. The Central Water Planning Unit has a major research programme on the water quality problems associated with transfers of water between river basins. In short, on the water authority front control has been tightened and research into problems such as these continues. On the horticultural front, the Ministry of Agriculture's

advisory service is willing to provide advice. I understand that its staff has visited more than half the growers affected in 1973 in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and has found no evidence of damage except in the cases already referred to.
Tomato plants are particularly susceptible. I understand that the staff of the advisory service are continuing to visit the tomato growers who have been affected. I have no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to consult them, or if any of his constituents wishes to consult them, the staff will be readily available to make their expertise available to his constituents and also to undertake consultations regularly with the water authorities about the continuing problem which affects us all.
I am sorry that I cannot add much more this evening to that rather official reply about what the two Departments are doing, beyond expressing our considerable sympathy and assuring the hon. Gentleman that since the Water Act came into operation we have been doing all we can to tighten procedures and to give every assistance to his constituents. I greatly hope that if he has any problems he will continue to be in touch with my Department, on behalf of his constituents.
For our part we shall be very anxious, because we have so much sympathy with them, to give all the assistance we can. We hope that there will not be any further recurrence of these difficulties. Further tests hold out hope for the belief that this year's difficulties do not come from the cause which was originally thought to be the case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance of our continuing concern for his constituents and our continuing desire to do what we can to assist them in the great difficulties they have undoubtedly encountered.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOUSING FINANCE (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Division Lists Nos. 319 to 322

Division No. 319.]
AYES
[8.01 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Alison, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gorst, John
Monro, Hector


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Baker, Kenneth
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Banks, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Beith, A. J.
Griffiths, Eldon
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bell, Ronald
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hall, Sir John
Mudd, David


Bitten, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Body, Richard
Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Bottomley, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Havers, Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brittan, Leon
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hicks, Robert
Pardoe, John


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Penhaligon, David[...]


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Buck, Antony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Raison, Timothy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Channon, Paul
James, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cockcroft, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cope, John
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cordle, John H.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rifkind, Malcolm


Corrie, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crowder, F. P.
Kirk Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
knight Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dean, Paul (N. Somerset)
Knox David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Drayson, Burnaby
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Scott, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Emery Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Sims Roger


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Fell, Anthony
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fox, Marcus
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Freud, Clement
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Stradling Thomas, J


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mayhew, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mills, Peter








Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Trotter, Neville
Wall, Patrick
Young, Sir Q. (Ealing, Acton)


Tugendhat, Christopher
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hon George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth



Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Viggers, Peter
Wells, John
Mr. Adam Butler and


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Archer, Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lipton, Marcus


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Litterick, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bates, Alf
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bean, R. E.
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan


Bishop, E. S.
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bradley, Tom
George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Buchanan, Richard
Gould, Bryan Gourlay Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Graham, Ted
Mendelson, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Carmichael, Neil

Moorman, Eric


Carter, Ray
Harrison, waiter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Roland


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hatton, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Clemitson, Ivor
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Noble, Mike


Cohen, Stanley
Heifer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Horam, John
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Concannon, J. D.
Howell, Dennis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orbach, Maurice


Conlan, Bernard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Huckfield, Les
Ovenden, John


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Padley, Walter


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Perry, Ernest


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Phipps, Dr Colin


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flirt)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Dunn, James A.
Lamborn, Harry
Ryman, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyrteth
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Edge, Geoff
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)







Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, James (Pollok)


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Whitehead, Phillip


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tinn, James
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tomlinson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Small, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Snape, Peter
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woodall, Alec


Stallard, A. W.
Ward, Michael
Woof, Robert


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watkins, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stott, Roger
Watkinson, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Strang, Gavin
Weetch, Ken



Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. David Stoddart.